Most Jews I know think that any goy who hates Arabs/Muslims is likely to hate Jews as well and so Donald Trump (and any form of populism and nationalism and gentile cohesion) makes them nervous.
When goyim start noticing patterns (such as Jews are smart, blacks can run fast, Asians study hard, etc) and remarking upon them and wanting to take action on them (profiling Muslims), some Jews get nervous. Jews do best in an individualist society where people are judged as individuals primarily and not as representatives of their group, and where there is little in-group/out-group distinction and there is not one collectivist religion and culture.
An Orthodox Jewish friend told me Shabbos that he loved Trump’s idea of banning Muslim immigration and that he hoped Trump would extend the idea to deporting all Muslims, and that if Jews were then forced to leave America too, he would be fine with it. He’d go to Israel.
When Jews in the diaspora get nervous about goy hatred for Muslims, we reveal that we see ourselves as an alien tribe.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on When The Goyim Notice Patterns
During a five-minute meditation in a 12-step meeting last week, I had a terrifying thought — how does God want me to spend my day? Then the scary questions just kept on coming: How does God want me to deal with my neighbors? How does God want me to treat my clients? How does God want me to relate to my family? How does God want me to treat my enemies? My creditors? How does God want me to blog? To surf the web? To watch TV? Is God OK with my obsession with football? How does God want me to watch Netflix? Does God want me to watch Game of Thrones? Does God want me to get another job?
I find it easier to ask, what does Jewish law say about this, then to ask, what does God want in this situation.
How does God want me to conduct my business? How does God want me to conduct my friendships? How does God want me to relate to my rabbis? How does God want me to conduct myself in shul? Is God OK with me using my time in shul primarily to talk to people? Is God OK with me skipping out on the Torah reading and the sermon to shmooze? How does God want me to look at women? How does God want me to treat women I want to bed? How long does God want me to lust? Is God OK with me lusting 15 minutes a day? How does God want me to treat blacks, Mexicans and Muslims? How does God want me to write about race? How does God want me to blog about Jews, Judaism and Israel? How much would my life change if I kept asking myself, what does God want from me in this situation? Where would I get my kicks?
Posted inGod, Personal|Comments Off on A Terrifying Thought
For awhile, back in 2003, Iraq meant never having to say you’re sorry. The spring offensive had produced a victory in less than three weeks, with a relatively low American and Iraqi civilian death toll. Saddam fled and George W. Bush and his team drew overwhelming praise, at least here at home.
But wait. Where were the crowds greeting us as “liberators”? Why were the Iraqis now shooting at each other–and blowing up our soldiers? And where were those WMDs, bio-chem labs, and nuclear materials? Most Americans still backed the invasion, so it still too early for mea culpas–it was more “my sad” than “my bad.”
–
By 2004 it was clear that Saddam’s WMDs would never be found, but with another election season at hand, sorry was still the hardest word. But a few very limited glimmers of accountability began to appear. So let’s begin our catalog of the art of mea culpa and Iraq here.
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY President Bush and many others–including scores of Democrats–who once claimed “slam dunk” evidence on Iraq’s WMDs now admitted that this intelligence was more below-average than Mensa. But don’t blame them! They simply had been misled. Judith Miller of The New York Times, perhaps the prime fabulist in the run-up to war, explained that she was only as good as her sources–her sources having names like “Curveball” and “Red Cap Guy.”
But the news media, which for the most part had swallowed whole the WMD claims, was not facing re-election, so some self-criticism, at least of the “mistakes-were-made” variety came easier.
THE MINI-CULPA This phrase was coined by Jack Shafer of Slate after The New York Times published an “editors’ note” in May 2004, admitting it had publishing a few “problematic articles” (it didn’t mention any authors) on Iraqi WMDs, but pointing out it was “taken in” like most in the Bush administration. Unlike the Times, Washington Post editors three months later did not produce their own explanation but allowed chief media reporter Howard Kurtz to write a lengthy critique. Editors and reporters admitted they had often performed poorly but offered one excuse after another, with phrases such as “always easy in hindsight,” “editing difficulties,” “communication problems” and “there is limited space on Page 1.” One top reporter said, “We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power. “
STONEWALLING As years passed, the carnage in Iraq intensified but accepting blame for this in America was still pretty much AWOL. President Bush and Vice President Cheney said that even if the WMD threat was bogus, they’d still do it again. Reason: They’d deposed a “dictator”–and would you rather have Saddam still in power?
Now let’s flash forward to this past two weeks, when Iraq (remember Iraq?) re-emerged in the news and opinion sections. But anyone who expected that hair shirts would come into fashion must have been sadly disappointed. The “mea culpas” would not be “maxima.” First, those who accepted some blame.
LIMITED HANGOUT STRATEGY David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, wrote well over a thousand words at the Daily Beast describing multiple reasons for promoting the war before very briefly concluding, “Those of us who were involved—in whatever way—bear the responsibility.” While adding: “I could have set myself on fire in protest on the White House lawn and the war would have proceeded without me.” Jonathan Chait at New York offered regrets for backing the war but defended believing in Saddam’s WMD and recalled that “supporting the war was cool and a sign of seriousness.” And: “The people demanding apologies today will find themselves being asked to supply apologies of their own tomorrow.”
YOUNG AND DUMBER Ezra Klein apologized in a Bloomberg column, at great length, for supporting the war–when he was eighteen, and “young and dumb.” Charles P. Pierce at Esquire replied, “It is encouraging that he no longer believes in fairy tales.”
MEA (AND A LOT OF OTHERS) CULPA Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, wrote at Foreign Policy: “It never occurred to me or anyone else I was working with, and no one from the intelligence community or anyplace else ever came in and said, ‘What if Saddam is doing all this deception because he actually got rid of the WMD and he doesn’t want the Iranians to know?’ Now, somebody should have asked that question. I should have asked that question. Nobody did.”
SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK Thomas Friedman, famous author and New York Times columnist, admitted that the U.S. had “paid too high a price” for the 2003 invasion (which he supported, but did not now mention) but, hey, there was still a decent chance that good would come from it–if only those ungrateful Iraqis would stop blowing each other up and form a stable democracy. David Ignatius at the Washington Post offered his regrets but observed that at least “the surge” worked and saved lives (although Rajiv Chandraskaran at the Post calls this a “myth”).
Now for those who accepted little or no blame:
WHO, MEA? Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy Pentagon chief, in an interview fiercely denied he was the architect of the disaster. Afterall, “I didn’t meet with him [Bush] very often.” The New York Times in an editorial pointed fingers at the bad actors who helped get us into the war but somehow did not recognize any “me” in “mess.” (The Washington Post got around this by not publishing an editorial on the subject at all.) Peter Beinart at The Daily Beast blamed the war on American “hubris” but did not reveal that he (hubristically?) backed the war himself.
THAT’S MY STORY AND I’M STICKING TO IT Dick Cheney in a new Showtime documentary said he’d do it all again. “I feel very good about it. If I had to do it over again, I’d do it in a minute.” Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair concurred. Donald Rumsfeld tweeted (yes) about “liberating” 25 million Iraqis. He failed to recall when he said the war would last at most six months. Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, said that asking if the war was worth it was “not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation.”
IF WE’D ONLY KNOWN! George Will on ABC: “If in 2003 we’d known what we know now — the absence of weapons of mass destruction, the difficulty of governing and occupying a society in which, once you lop off the regime, you’re going to have a civil war in a sectarian tribal society — the answer I think is obviously no.”
BLAME IT ON THE HANDLERS Kenneth Pollack of Brookings, one of the most influential proponents of the war, now says that he had a different war in mind and the occupation was handled incompetently, asserting, “it didn’t have to be this bad.”
Posted inAmerica, Iraq, Journalism, Neoconservatives|Comments Off on So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits–and the President–Failed on Iraq
“Media values ranked:
1. Racial strife
2. Shopping
3. Sexual perversions
4. Sports
5. Israel
6. Viral videos
7. _____________?”
Luke says: I wonder if racial strife is the number one preoccupation of media and if so, why? I think that is accurate and I think that the reason this strife is number one on the media agenda is that the media is disproportionately influenced by Jews who, because of their history, are ultra-sensitive to threats of racial conflict.
Published on Dec 1, 2015: What brings a young man born in modern, communist China to move to Israel and convert to Judaism? In a black hat and suit, Aaron Waldman talks about his long search for the truth and his family’s difficulty accepting his metamorphosis.
Posted inChina, Conversion, Judaism|Comments Off on How a Chinese became a Hasidic Jew – Conversion to Judaism
Link: David Frum, who is a wobbly half-hearted restrictionist on immigration, seems to go full Trump, or at least full Coulter, in his latest Atlantic article:
Quote
Donald Trump’s noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are literally true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not, about how much immigration to accept and what kind to prioritize—not even for the portion of U.S. migration conducted according to law, much less for the larger portion that is not.
Donald Trump, literally correct! This will ruffle some feathers.
Nervous about Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris massacre? How dare you! Would you turn away Jews fleeing Hitler? Oh, you think that analogy is hyperbolic? Tell it to the mayor of New York City.
Oy, vey! He said it!
This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since. Since 1991, the United States has accepted more than 100,000 Somali refugees. Britain accepted 100,000 as well. Some 50,000 Somali refugees were resettled in Canada; some 40,000 in Sweden; smaller communities were settled in the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark.
How’s that going?
It turns out it's a completely shambolic mess:
These gangs are involved in multiple criminal activities that require sophisticated and resource-intensive law enforcement investigations. They are growing in influence and violence … and practice certain cultural behaviors that render some traditional U.S. criminal justice tools less effective.
Meanwhile, terrist org Al Shabab (remove Shabab!) is recruiting aggressively from American Somalis. Among other things, it wants them to stage attacks on shopping malls like the Mall of America (which, trust me, could be a win-win for everyone).
As Frum–is there an echo in here?–documents, the Syrians fleeing their country are poorly educated and culturally unsuited to assimilate to Western society.
Germany in particular has tried to cope with this challenge by aggressively promoting low-wage work for the benefit of workers in the former East Germany and new immigrants. Some categories of work are exempted from standard benefit packages and minimum wage laws. But if first-generation migrants willingly accept this bargain, their children likely won’t. Unfortunately, while a new population’s expectations will rise in one generation, the accumulation of sufficient human capital to fulfill those expectations takes significantly longer. The predictable result: protracted underemployment across visibly identifiable subgroups of the population—group perceptions of inequity and injustice—resentment, radicalization, and criminal and political violence: the second-generation European Muslim experience in a one grim economic equation.
A perfect summation of the immigration problem. (And, as pointed out in the gumball video, it won't make a dent in third world suffering, because their population growth exceeds even the rosiest forecast of sustainable immigration levels.)
Frum's essay is not without problems. In attempting to sell a "not all immigrants" narrative–that immigrants separate into two tracks, with the higher track immigrants being an unadulterated boon–Frum misstates the real effect of H-1B immigration:
Those divides are highlighted by a massive new study by the National Academy of Sciences of the acculturation of new immigrants to the United States: “The Integration of Immigrants into American Society.” The first reports on the study in October headlined comforting news: recent immigrants to the United States were assimilating rapidly—arguably more rapidly than their predecessors of the pre-1913 Great Migration. One must read deeper into the report to encounter the worrying question: Assimilate to what? Like the country receiving them, immigrants to the United States are cleaved by class. Approximately one quarter of immigrants arrive with high formal educational qualifications: a college degree or more. Their record and that of their children is one of outstanding assimilation to the new American meritocratic elite, in many ways outperforming the native-born. (The highest outcomes are recorded for immigrants from India: 83 percent of male immigrants from India arrive with a college degree or higher.) College-educated immigrants are more likely to be employed than natives, and their children are more likely to complete a college degree in their turn. Here is a mighty contribution to the future wealth and power of the United States.
In reality, the reason H-1Bs are more likely to be employed is that they can only get over here in the first place because they are sponsored by corporations. And the real effect is to displace college-educated Americans who have incurred large college debts getting to the point where they can compete on paper with degree mill bindis from Hyderabad. But they can't compete in practice because many American businesses still have a delusional (and amusingly racist) conception of the abilities of Indian and Chinese programmers.
But, as Frum points out, even if you buy into this super-immigrant rhetoric, the other side of the coin is much uglier:
By contrast, about one-third of immigrants arrive with less than a high-school education. Immigrants from Latin America—the largest single group—arrive with the least education: Only about 13 percent of them have a college degree or more. They too assimilate to American life, but to the increasingly disorderly life of the American non-elite. Their children make educational progress as compared to the parents, but—worryingly—educational progress then stagnates or retrogresses in the third generation. For many decades to come, Latino families educationally lag well behind their non-Latino counterparts.
In short, they become fatter, more criminal, and worse on virtually every other measure of success in life than they would have had they stayed behind. That's the power of assimilation.
Posted inImmigration|Comments Off on The ending of this Atlantic article about immigration will make you stand up and hate foreigners
The streams of leftoid memes are beginning to cross. One minute, shitlibs are crowing about normal people “fearing Syrian refugees who are widows and orphans”, the next they’re calling Trump a fascist and letting the world know how scared they are of the Rise of His Excellency.
Now that Trump has opened the Overton Window wider than a cuckservative’s anus by promising to close the borders to Muslim immigration until further notice (never), the shitlib circus has rolled into town and pulled out the stops. For instance, here’s The Economist’s latest cover:
Call me crazy, but shooting innocent people in learning disability centers and concert halls falls more squarely in the realm of “playing with fear”. And what Trump proposes – keeping out the sort of people prone to playing with fear – is the exact opposite: a practical solution to reduce fearfulness.
But that’s the thing with suicidally stupid shitlibs claiming with their last breaths to love the idea of importing the third world while paying top dollar to live in gentrified neighborhoods bereft of all their totemic muddy imports: they have to abuse language and deny the meaning of words to get any moral traction with their fellow self-righteousness whores. If they spoke plainly, they wouldn’t be able to hold the positions they do without appearing utterly insane. (they are, regardless)
The shitlib insists closing the borders to groups of people whose culture and race are alien to Western Civ is a sign of fear, when the non-shitlib knows in his gut it’s common sense. It isn’t brave to stand in the path of a speeding train; it’s suicidally stupid. And it isn’t fearful to avoid unnecessary entanglements with hot-headed, ingrate foreigners; it’s prudent.
So for the typical language-mangling shitlib, “prudence” becomes “fear”, and “suicidal stupidity” becomes “nuance”, “tolerance”, or “love“.
* The tears of liberals are so sweet. The question of demographic composition is not crazy. Islam doesn’t follow the definition of religion which is applied when we think of Christian religions, Islam is much more, so recognizing that Islam needs to be analyzed independent of the Christian model of what constitutes religion is not crazy.
* If no one really trusts Donald Trump than why is he leading the polls in the Republican field? Why is he not down there at zero percent like Lindsey Graham?
* Trump is the most high profile person espousing the views of a large portion of this nation. Because of his personal wealth and popularity he seems immune from the social and professional shunning that relegates the likes of Pat Buchanan to publishing his opinions in blog columns. Trump might not be perfect. He is no George Washington. But he is the first guy in a long time to express views contrary to the narrative and live to tell about it.
* The more they try to shame all Republicans and conservatives as racists and extremists, the more they make radicalization not just possible but inevitable.
They’re turning people into Trumps with their divisive rhetoric!
* Trump has no constituency among the bicoastal elite, as far as I know the only fellow billionaire endorsing him is Carl Ichann.
So when they say “no one really trusts” its the same as when they said they didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon.
For far too many of our elite, the space in between NY/DC and SF/LA practically doesn’t exist except for an island called Vail, Colorado.
* When is [Mark] Zuckerberg going to stand up to the attacks on the traditional American majority? With the ethnic cleansing by immigration, and Black Lives Matter attacks, I think it’s fair to say we are worthy of his standards.
Unless he has double standards.
* Marxists are fond of calling it “controlling the discourse.”
Because discourse is what Marxists (and Moslems) fear and hate and spite – and because discourse is what Donald Trump has liberated.
Marxists (and Moslems) don’t have discourse. They have sterile childish slogans (and the Koran). This is why Marxists (and Moslems) wage war on and against free speech – and it’s why they’ve attacked language itself, and have thereby attacked reason. Of course this is also why neither Marxists (nor Moslems) can take a joke.
I feel as Winston Churchill felt when England had stood alone against Hitler’s colossal savagery, and he knew that Britain’s survival depended entirely on the United States coming into the war, so that Churchill prayed for a casus belli that would bring the United States into the war. Well, with sincere thanks to Donald Trump, at last the people of the United States have entered today’s war. I’m on Mr. Trump’s side fighting the Globalist-Multicultural-Marxist-Moslem Axis.
And Donald Trump did not wait for a casus belli, he just saw straight and came out SHOOTING!
Gotta love that kind of AMERICAN Man.
Donald Trump is the George Patton of politics. Excerpt from the Patton character’s speech in the eponymous 1970 biopic:
“Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that ‘we are holding our position.’ We’re not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose and we’re going to kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we’re going to go through him like crap through a goose!”
Tell me that’s not Donald Trump, and I’ll say, “Shame on you.”
* Trump still hasn’t bashed the Jews and homos.
He goes for easy targets: Muslims, Mexicans, Mandarins.
* “Buchanan told me once the key is, before there’s any kind of controversy out there, create the controversy no matter how bad it may make you look, because you control the solution, everyone’s talking about you, you can guide it, but if somehow from the outside someone [else] creates the controversy, you have no control over it.”
* DailyMail went into anti-Trump overdrive yesterday with one article after another featuring various people bashing him from one angle or another. It seemed like it was all about him. I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do something like this before. The alarm bells have really been going off. They’re actually scared that things he’s been saying might catch on with the average American. Only they are allowed to hold the megaphone and determine the framework of the discussion.
* “It’ll be interesting to see what Silicon Valley liberals threaten to do if Trump wins.”
Trump should rub their rhetoric back in their faces by demanding that they hire x number of American-born black and Hispanic programmers. When they can’t, he should fine them a huge sum for each day that they don’t meet that goal. It seems to me that the best way to destroy the left is to humiliate them: ship huge numbers of immigrants to their rich neighborhoods (and watch them flee as a result), open section 8 housing in upscale Blue State areas, require Hollywood studios to hire unmarketable minorities in order to meet a quota, and destroy Silicon Valley through hiring quotas. Why should Mark Zuckerberg get to preach diversity but not practice it? Beat the left by giving them what they preach and humiliate them when they can’t deliver.
* When complaining about a pot of boiling water, one should blame he who lit the fire beneath the pot rather than he who lifted the lid.
* Have you seen the new FriendsWhoLikeTrump thing on Facebook? You can now easily bring up a list of any Facebook friends that have ever “liked” Trump. The point is not political solidarity, of course. The point is so you can purge them.
The Left has gone full on Commie now, with accusations and purges of friends. It won’t be long before they want to start throwing Trump supporters in jail.
* More like there has always been an agreement between the MSM and liberals to never allow the majority of people who think like this to get air time. Unfortunately for them, they are not able to keep Trump off the airwaves.
* Damn, NBC management hates Trump so much they brought Tom Brokaw out of retirement. With rhetoric worthy of Shakespeare. I especially like how Tom shrills on about paranoia and accuses Trump of fear-mongering while he himself conjures up images of Nazis. The irony is so deep in this thing, it has to be method acting. I wonder if he used the same NBC producers that doctored the George Zimmerman 9-1-1 call. It’s a real tight piece of work.
* “A drunken man says what the sober man thinks.”
* He-he, reminds me of this stunt that some conservative Israeli politicians pulled. They offered to pay African illegals’ admission to a public swimming pool in the nice part of Tel Aviv. Hilarity ensues. No one’s bold enough to object to the Africans per se, so instead they yell at the organizers of this stunt, calling them provocateurs.
It would be swell to pull one of these in an upscale American area like the ones you suggest. Except that, unlike Israelis, Americans have already had fifty years to make adjustments to forced integration and a swimming pool like that would thus be a private club on private property in America.
* Media is having a full nervous breakdown. It assumes power to shout down opposition, turn genuine dissidents into pariahs, and set tenets of our sacred national religion – Ostrichism Or Ostracism. Now that’s dying. Media can’t turn a poll around or force to the wall Trump, Coulter, or whoever. Once it thundered. Now it screeches in very highest C ranges. Its flailing desperation is hilarious. How the mighty have fallen.
* Defining those who disagree with as crazy and therefore not entitled to free speech was an invention of the Frankfurt School, a bunch of commies who fled Hitler, found sanctuary in various US universities and immediately began to subvert American society to the extent they could. Although not in direct descent from the Marxist heretic, Tonio Gramsci, who argued that communism was so repugnant to the masses that society’s institutions — family, religion, law, education, constitutional government — must be destroyed to demoralize the population and pave the way for an eventual communist takeover; the Frankfurt School and their intellectual heirs have pretty much adopted the Gramscian strategy. You’ve got to give the Frankfurt School credit though; Gramsci never floated this particular method of demonizing one’s opponents. THe Soviets adopted it immediately, imprisoning thousands of dissidents in mental hospitals where they were dosed with various poisons in an attempt to return them to “sanity”.
* I derive amusement from watching MSM megaphones desperately elide talking about Trump’s reasons for surging in the polls, e.g., at least mouthing support for real immigration reform and border control, while pretending to provide deep analyses of the reasons for his popularity and why he poses such a threat to this country’s puppet masters.
* The alt-right pro-Trump crowd tend to be very anti-Semitic. Check out their sites and Twitter feeds.
If so, it is because an anti-immigrationist will naturally attract anti-Semites. Why are they antisemitic? I suggest that antisemitism was down to background levels in the Anglosphere as far back as the mid 1990s. It has increased with the immigration, PC, multicult push from the MSM and Hollywood.
It would be interesting to try and graph antisemitism in different countries over time. I wonder how it might be measured. Pogroms only measure the extreme expression thereof.
* They’re anti-Semitic like Joey Ramone was anti-Soft-Rock.
What they’re for is more interesting.
* Trump could further turn the tables by announcing that he will issue an executive order as president requiring the executive branch to give preference to non-Ivy league job applicants until those schools verifiably end their racist anti-Asian admissions practices. He could also announce an amnesty program for illegals so long as those illegals first relocated Silicon Valley, Beverly Hills, etc. (with government assistance through section 8 housing, of course). The point is, there’s LOTS that can be done with this humiliation tactic…and I think it could produce significant results (i.e. discredit the opposition while also emboldening supporters to go on offense). The left really isn’t used to being called on their BS social posturing because the opposition has been too afraid to even mention the topic of race. I’m surprised that the right hasn’t thought of this before.
* Why do you think Facebook wants people to use their real names? Right from the start that was a useful way of keeping track of anyone who looked like straying off the reservation, and punishing them through public shaming if they did.
Why do you think many newspapers now ban commenting on articles about “controversial” issues. Some have eliminated comments sections altogether.
They’re already aware of the problem and they will act to ban it. They’ve just decided to do it gradually.
Posted inAnti-Semitism, Islam|Comments Off on Left Losing Control Of The Megaphone
REPORT: There could be up to a million victims of child sexual exploitation in the UK, it is feared.
Rotherham’s Labour MP Sarah Champion describes it as a “national disaster” and is demanding a taskforce to fight the “horror.”
In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mirror the shaken MP has told how she ‘nearly lost her mind’ after victims turned to her for help – unable to trust the police or local council.
She is currently getting an average of 10 victims a week coming to her for help.
Fighting back tears she told how she feared having a nervous breakdown worried about failing the “amazing women” and her horror after finding out a manual for grooming existed for paedophiles.
The MP was speaking after the Government announced they were taking over Rotherham Council for a “fresh start” and sending five commissioners to run the troubled authority.
Posted inAbuse|Comments Off on Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted ONE MILLION youngsters in the UK
According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)
Notice that the controversy is not over whether the Muslims can rape the captives but only over coitus interruptus. The rape is taken for granted.
These passages have not gone unnoticed. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:
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” [Koran 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.
Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.
A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”
The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”
These beliefs are Qur’an-based. Until that is acknowledged, this practice will not end.
“Asian father-of-four raped pub worker for three hours after dragging her off the street saying ‘you white women are good at it,’” by Gemma Mullin, Daily Mail, December 21, 2014 (thanks to Thoughtful):
An Asian father-of-four dragged a young pub worker off the street and raped her for three hours saying ‘you white women are good at it’.
The woman, who is in her 20s, was walking home from work in Bedford at around 11pm when she was grabbed by Abdul Ghafoor, 33, and forced her into undergrowth, a court heard.
Ghafoor had drunk five rum drinks when he came up behind her and bundled her into the bushes where he began sexually assaulting her in an attack that lasted from 11.25pm until 2.45am.
The victim had sent a WhatsApp message to her sister when she left work on May 30 this year to say she was walking to their flat.
But the married father-of-four, who had earlier propositioned two other white woman, demanded that the woman perform a sex act on him saying ‘you white girls are good at it’.
She was able to send a second message to her sister saying ‘help me’ before he smashed her phone.
At one point she managed to make a run for it when Ghafoor vomited as a result of the alcoholic drinks he had downed, but he caught her and took her back into the undergrowth.
Her sister had raised the alarm and the victim heard the police helicopter overhead as a major search was launched to find her.
Eventually Ghafoor allowed her to get dressed and walked out on to the the road with her saying she should accompany him into town, but they were seen by police inspector, Jamie Longwith.
She got into the officer’s car while Ghafoor made an attempt to escape but was caught….
Posted inIslam, Rape|Comments Off on UK: Muslim abducts, rapes woman: “You white women are good at it
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
