Friday, January, 2nd, 2015
I am not sure if Fox News Radio political analyst Bethany Blankley’s December 29 piece in The Washington Times, As Christianity exits Europe, ‘Criminal Muslims’ fill void with rabid violence is more offensive on account of its suggestion that peace and order are impossible without Christianity or that Muslims are violent criminals. And then there is the ubiquitous false premise, without which any conservative argument is impossible:
History provides ample evidence of ways in which the local church provides continuity, encouragement and support of family life and societal freedoms. It also reveals what happens when churches close: societal structures erode, crime escalates, and freedoms evaporate. What Fox News Analyst has said and implied is actually true…when God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob are no longer around…churches close do to satanic spirits running rampant and influencing humans to just do whatever they want, clergy not teaching how they are supposed to teach (they are to teach the Christian believers in becoming disciples, not just followers), clergy being politically correct, and thus, not teaching the people what the Lord wants them to learn.
Churches don’t provide “societal freedoms.” History does not show that they do. On the contrary, the Church has always been associated with limits on societal freedoms. You know, like black folks can’t get married in this white church, or a black man cannot marry a white woman in this church, or a gay couple cannot be married in this church. Or my favorite: that slavery is okay because the Bible says so. What Hrafnkell Haraldsson says here is so antiquated concerning the racist aspect…but true with the gay marriage because one cannot do something that they are against…like a union soldier in the US, in 1861, owning slaves, fighting trying to free slaves…but in the same same token that Hrafnkell doesn’t make any note of, is the fact that in the West, most churches will not marry gays, but in Muslim countries, they KILL the gays…Hrafnkell doesn’t mention this part of the Islamic religion, does he…
Or this church is going to condemn abortion, or contraception, or even the idea of a woman working outside of the home. It would be literally impossible for the closing of a church to cause freedoms to evaporate. On the contrary, freedom blossoms, because suddenly the community is not being told “you can’t do this, you can’t do that” or you will go to hell. Once again, Hrafnkell doesn’t mention that in Islam, Muslim women are warned that abortion will merit their death, contraception will merit their death, and working outside of the home will merit being beaten…
Nor is there any evidence that closing churches leads to escalation of crime. This is a favorite meme of the Religious Right, that without the Bible, there is no law. But laws were around for many centuries before Moses and his Ten Commandments. Hammurabi is by far the most famous of these earlier codes, but there were others, including the Sumerian Code of Lipit-Ishtar, two hundred years before Hammurabi. The earliest code known is that of Ur-Nammu of Ur, from the 21st century BCE.
It quickly becomes clear that the crime Blankley wants to focus on is rape, which is interesting, because in the United States, the last thing Fox News political analysts like Blankley want to talk about is rape. Blankley focuses on this because Muslims are mandated to rape ALL enemy women (and all non-Muslim women are the enemy)
You are no doubt aware that central to America’s Jim Crow narrative was the idea of black men raping white women. Racists loved accusing black men of rape, and then lynching them. Well, move over scary black men who rape white women. It is time to fear scary Muslim brutes who rape white women.
And Fox News says we live in a post-racist world.
In support of her criminal Muslim fantasies, Blankley (above) claims that Europe is infested with Muslim rapists, that, for example, “In Sweden, Muslim immigrants account for 5 percent of its population but commit 77 percent of its crime. Sweden’s “rape crisis” is a direct result of an influx of Muslim ‘asylum seekers.’”
But at the Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah refutes these claims, saying that,
In fact…most rapes in Norway are carried out by men of Norwegian and European background. More importantly, the evidence shows that there is no link between ethnicity, culture or religion and propensity to carry out rapes or sexual assaults. Although this might be true in Norway, although a high chance of being skewed for Islamic sympathy and the whitewashing of Islam…why is it that in places where Muslims have taken over…Kuwait 1990, Iraq 2014, Syria 2014, Nigeria 2009-2015, it is deemed as obligatory against the enemy women…
This is in line with a set of 1994 statistics from New Mexico Clearinghouse on Sexual Abuse and Assault Services, which tell us that “In single-offender rape/sexual assault victimizations, Whites and Blacks were victimized most often by members of their own race (Whites by Whites, 78.4%; Blacks by Blacks, 83.5%)” and that, overall, most rapists (49.4%) were Whites. I think they got their stats by looking at ethnicity, and not religion…
Abunimah points to the fact that, “Assault rape – stereotypically an attack by a stranger – is the rarest form of rape. Out of the 152 reported rapes in the Oslo Police District in 2010, 6 were classified by the researchers as “assault” rapes.” RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, tells us likewise that “The rapist isn’t a masked stranger” but generally – 73% of the time – someone you know.
Under the circumstances, it would be impossible for so few Muslim men to rape all these non-Muslim women, because a few men (6-7% of the population) aren’t going to personally know all these women. They would necessarily be strangers. It just doesn’t work, except as a means to generate fear and loathing of Muslims.
And Abunimah points out that the Oslo Police study often cited by Islamophobes actually says the opposite of what people like Blankley say it says, namely that,
Crude generalizations that have given the impression that rapists are only foreigners – and primarily Muslims – are shown to be inadequate and erroneous.
Blankley is doing her best here to arouse fear of the Other. They’re different from us, so they rape us. (I won’t even get into all the examples from the Old Testament where Blankley’s God tells his followers to rape the women of the Other). The Old Testament says nothing about raping women because that is against the the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob’s commandments, and is part of the spiritual world of fornication, lust and adultery. He also doesn’t know anything about the Qur’an or the Hadiths, nor their law, which states that ALL non-Muslims are enemies, men, women, and children.
The trouble for Blankley is that the Oslo Police study says,
It must be emphasized once more that the marked over-representation of individuals from a minority background in connection with several types of rape cannot be interpreted as a result of alien culture being a causal explanation for rape. Unless you do not know anything about Islam, and you place Islam in the same category as all other religions.
We could go on and on about the problem of rape, which is endemic in the United States itself, and rape culture is celebrated by the very people who read The Washington Times. One doesn’t have to look far to see evidence of this. If Republicans had their way, rape would, in America, be defined out of existence.
Yet Blankley tells us, for example, that,
The Dutch government must commit itself to repatriation of Muslims back to Muslim countries so we will not be plagued with honor killings, cousin marriages, anti-Semitism, homophobia, animal abuse, rampant crime, rape.” This is very true…they feel their law is better than their host countries. Once Shari’a is enforced in America through Barack Hussein Islama, and England through King Charles…rape will be a high (once criminal) act that will happen.
So, if churches come back, rapes will go away? Then how does Blankley explain all the rapes in this country? You literally can’t turn around without bumping into a church. I have one at the end of my street. If churches made rape go away, America would be rape-free. If America was a Godly nation, there would be very few…but because we turned our backs on the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, He will judge us come September of 2015 with the dollar crash and then with martial law in October 2015, in which he will spew his religious laws on the Americans, which is the same laws the terrorists use.
And you can’t have a report written by Fox News end without making gratuitously false and misleading comparisons to Nazi Germany:
Three generations prior, in 1936, nearly 6 million Germans were members of the Nazi Party, representing 7 percent of Germany’s population. Those 7 percent caused over 50 million deaths in less than 10 years.
The 6 and 7.5 percent of Islamists in Europe will cause even more death unless they are stopped. What is not shared about Adolph, but what he wrote and admitted to in his book “Mein Kampf” was that he was a Muslim, that is partially why he killed Jews primarily. But, what Fox’s Blankley has said, is the truth, more than 50 million people will be killed by Muslims during the tribulation, in which the Mahdi, or the Anti-Christ, (same person)
Needless to say, the analogy is completely, egregiously false. Nazism is a right ring ideology that embraces ethnic nationalism and fear of the Other. Yes, like the Republican Party The Washington Times exists to serve. The Nazis, needless to say, took power in their own country, and did so electorally, at which point Hitler announced he would be staying in power until further notice.
Does Blankley mean to suggest that these 6 to 7.5 percent of Muslims are going to win power electorally in their various European countries? How does she imagine, assuming every single one of them is an extremist “Islamist” (an assumption she does, in fact, make here) are going to kill more than 50 million people in less than 10 years? It will be more like in 7 years and it is part of the Apocryphal end with the four horsemen…there is not a Pale horseman, it is actually, in the original Greek text, Chloros, which is green…
This is fear-mongering at its finest, an exercise in propaganda that would have made those selfsame Nazis proud. It is certainly not journalism. It is, all too sadly, typical of the Fox News echo chamber and its ethnic nationalist audience. This is not the truth, it is Fear-mongering, and it is not propaganda when one knows about, and studies, the “religion of peace” they will know this is the truth…
Photo from The Washington Times
Posted on 2 Jan 15 by Politic us USA
[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Not meaning it bad, but Fox News should have picked a better way of portraying that Muslims are allowed to, and have done a huge amount of rape…however, Hrafnkell Haraldsson of PoliticusUSA knows nothing about Christianity and Islam. In his article, he rants on about laws and Christianity and that the lack of, or the restrictions of, Christianity does not hamper the society. Well, yes it does…you see, it was in God’s plan to have the United States become a country…a Godly country…a sister country to Israel (initially, the Jews thought the US was their new home, up until 1948). Our laws were written around the Ten Commandments (that is why originally the Ten Commandments were in court houses). And in the ’60’s when America started to apostate away from, and leave God, then the American society started to fall. In which we are about to be judged severely.
Now, concerning the stint about rape and the Muslim religion…here are facts concerning it…sorry for the long blog today…just wanted to give a rebuttal concerning the media coverup and blacking out the true Muslim actions, as well as Hrafnkell Haraldsson’s not knowing what he is talking about when he is defending the Muslims…he has no clue what their religion actually says concerning about anything, let alone rape. When I was deployed to Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm, the truth came out amongst military that freed Kuwaitis from the Iraqis that the Iraqis raped the Kuwaiti women because it was a part of conquering the “enemy”.
H/T to David Wood for the article concerning the religion of Islam and the permissiveness of rape among the “enemy”…keep in mind, according to the Qur’an and Shari’a, as well as the aHadiths, non-Muslims are enemies of Islam…men women and children…in Islam, there is no innocent people, like the rest of the world looks at it…in Islam, women make up most of the population in hell, and because of how women in the Western countries dress, they force the urge of men to force intercourse with them, and according to Shari’a, it is the women’s fault they got raped…and they are punished by death for adultery or fornication (depending on if the man is married or not)…
Does Islam Allow Muslims to Rape Female Captives and Slave Girls?
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Critics of Islam and Sharia frequently claim that the Qur’an allows Muslim men to rape their female captives and slave girls (i.e. those “whom their right hands possess”). Westernized Muslims, however, are appalled at the thought of their religion allowing rape, so they insist that Islam prohibits this practice. Unfortunately, Islam isn’t defined by Westernized Muslims; it’s defined by Allah and Muhammad in the Qur’an and the Hadith. So instead of inventing a religion based on the feelings of Westernized Muslims and calling it “Islam,” let’s turn to the Qur’an and the Hadith to see what Allah and Muhammad have to say about this issue.
As Muhammad’s armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from Allah to guide them in their treatment of their female captives. Allah revealed:
Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.
Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day Of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.
Notice that Allah commands Muslims to abstain from sex, except with their wives and with “those whom their right hands possess.” Allah gave the same sexual rights to Muhammad:
Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war …
The Muslim practice of having sex with captured women is reported often in the Hadith, where we learn that Muhammad’s only objection to sex with captives was his condemnation of birth control.
Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger 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, 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.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4138—We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as “azl” above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: “How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: “It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
Sahih Muslim 3384—Jabir bin Abdullah reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.
Clearly, Muslims were taking full advantage of Muhammad’s teachings about female captives and slave girls. Nevertheless, Muslims eventually captured women along with their husbands, so they wondered if Allah would allow them to have sex with these married captives (since adultery is otherwise forbidden in Islam).
Allah gives his answer in the Qur’an:
Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess …
Here’s the historical background for this verse:
Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
Thus, the Qur’an allows men to have sex with their female captives and slave girls, and the Hadith provides numerous examples of how this was practiced. Yet we must follow this fact through to its logical conclusion. Muslims decided to have sex with their captives, whom they were later going to sell. Some of these captives were women whose husbands and families had been slaughtered by Muslims. Others had husbands who had been captured by Muslims. Would these women gladly consent to sexual intercourse with men who had killed their families or taken their families captive, and who were simply going to sell them into slavery when they arrived at the next town? Certainly not. But since the Qur’an and Muhammad authorized sex with these women (and said nothing about seeking their permission), we can only conclude that Muhammad allowed his followers to rape their captives.
For more on women in Islam, click here.
Posted on 2 Feb 14 by Answering Muslims
Another good source to look at, if you have doubts concerning RAPE in the Islamic religion is at The Religion of Peace
Filed under: "End times", "Enemy Within America", "lesser jihad", "religion of peace", America, Anti-American, anti-Christian, Barack Hussein Obama, Creeping Sharia, Islam, Islamic Indoctrination, Islamic Infiltration, Islamic intimidation, Islamic Jihad, Islamic Law, Islamic Threat, Islamic Trojan Horse, Rape | Tagged: Bethany Blankley, Fox News, Fox News Analyst, Hrafnkell Haraldsson, Islam, Islamic white washing, Muslims, politic us USA, Random, rape |