Lara Logan Speaks

"They raped me with their hands..."

More on this story.

From the New York Times:

Lara Logan thought she was going to die in Tahrir Square when she was sexually assaulted by a mob on the night that Hosni Mubarak’s government fell in Cairo.

Ms. Logan, a CBS News correspondent, was in the square preparing a report for “60 Minutes” on Feb. 11 when the celebratory mood suddenly turned threatening. She was ripped away from her producer and bodyguard by a group of men who tore at her clothes and groped and beat her body. “For an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands,” Ms. Logan said in an interview with The New York Times. She estimated that the attack involved 200 to 300 men....

Before the assault, Ms. Logan said, she did not know about the levels of harassment and abuse that women in Egypt and other countries regularly experienced. “I would have paid more attention to it if I had had any sense of it,” she said. “When women are harassed and subjected to this in society, they’re denied an equal place in that society. Public spaces don’t belong to them. Men control it. It reaffirms the oppressive role of men in the society.”...

Among the letters she received, she said, was one from a woman who lives in Canada who was raped in the back of a taxi in Cairo in early February, amid the protests there. “That poor woman had to go into the airport begging people to help her,” Ms. Logan recalled. When she returned home, “her family told her not to talk about it.”

Ms. Logan said that as she read the letter, she started to sob. “It was a reminder to me of how fortunate I was,” she said.

So that's what Egyptian "democracy" feels like.

"[Y]ou're basically my slave"

Rich Dart, aka Salahuddin: Jizya, not hypocrisy

A few weeks ago, the papers carried a story about a white Muslim convert called Rich Dart, who preaches hatred of this country while simultaneously claiming thousands of pounds in benefits from the state. It was not uncommon to see Dart described as a "hypocrite" for this. Similar accusations have been levelled against other British jihadists and Muslim welfare sponges in recent years, including Anjem Choudary and Abu Qatadah.

But are these guys really being hypocritical?

The jizya is a tax levied against non-Muslims in the Qur'an: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

The important Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir says that non-Muslims should pay this tax "in defeat and subservience", being "disgraced, humiliated and belittled."

Muhammad Shafi, the former Mufti of Pakistan who died in 1976, wrote the following in his commentary on the above Qur'an verse:

“Literally, jizya means return or recompense. In the terminology of the sharia, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing.

“The reason is that kufr (unbelief) and shirk (polytheism) are rebellion against Allah...Killing is the real punishment for it. But, Allah has, in His perfect mercy, reduced their punishment by giving them an option. The option is that, should they agree to live as subjects of the Islamic state under the general Islamic legal framework, they may be allowed to remain there against the payment of a nominal amount of jizya.”

Another influential modern Islamic commentator, Maulana Maududi, writes:

“One of the advantages of jizya is that it reminds the dhimmis every year that because they do not embrace Islam...they have to pay a price – jizya – for clinging to their errors.”

An article published today in the Telegraph, about the jihadist terror threat to Friday's Royal Wedding, contains this telling exchange:

As the group [Muslims Against Crusades] accused the Royal Family of being responsible for war crimes, onlookers shouted: “You're all on benefits anyway” and “Long live the Queen”.

One of the Muslims retorted: "You paid for this camera, you pay for my benefits, you're basically my slave."

In light of all of the above, it is abundantly clear that those British Muslims who take welfare benefits from the same state they claim to despise are not being hypocritical. The Qur'an and Islamic law mandate extraction of the jizya from non-Muslims as a symbol of Islamic domination and as a punishment for disbelief in Allah. These Islamic supremacists, therefore, view themselves as inherently entitled to all the money they are given by the Infidel state.

If our clueless leaders knew any of the above, this would not be an issue.

America Has Fallen

Black clouds

Sharia is here:

A Florida pastor at the center of a Koran-burning controversy was jailed briefly for refusing to pay what the authorities called a “peace bond” for a planned demonstration outside a mosque.
Related

The pastor, Terry Jones, whose remarks against Muslims have inflamed anti-Western sentiment in Afghanistan, said he refused to pay the $1 bond because doing so would violate his freedom of speech. He was released from jail hours later after paying the $1.

Mr. Jones had planned a demonstration Friday outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the nation. Prosecutors worried that the protest would lead to violence, and asked Judge Mark Somers of 19th District Court in Dearborn to intervene. Judge Somers conducted a one-day jury trial to determine whether Mr. Jones posed a threat to peace. The jury concluded that he did, and the judge then ordered Mr. Jones and an associate to post the bond to cover the cost of police protection.

Yes, you read that right: an American judge jailed a man for planning to stage a peaceful protest on public property - because a certain religious group to which the peaceful man did not belong would respond violently to this protest.

Give me liberty or give me death?

MCB: Women Who Don't Veil Are Disbelievers

I'm sure they are just ecstatic inside

As Andrew Gilligan has noted today at the Telegraph, a document on the website of the Muslim Council of Britain (which you can read in full here - I have saved it for re-upload in case an embarassed MCB tries to bury it) declares that the obligation for Muslim women to wear the veil is "not open to debate".

The document says that not covering the face is a "shortcoming" and suggests that any Muslims who advocate being uncovered could be guilty of rejecting Islam:

"We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution on this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief.

"Not practising something enjoined by Allah and his Messenger… is a shortcoming. Denying it is much more serious."

The statement quotes from the Qur'an: "It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and his Messenger have decreed a matter. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed strayed in a plain error." (33:36)

Unmentioned by Gilligan in his article is the part where the MCB tell believers to "show solidarity" against anyone who criticises the veil, since this criticism "might prove to be a stepping-stone towards further restrictions. Today the veil, tomorrow it could be the beard, jilbab and thereafter the headscarf!"

Worst of all, the MCB (whose leaders, it must be pointed out, have also signed petitions in support of Islamic terrorist groups and made excuses for Saudi hate literature) deliberately diminish the suffering the burqa can cause, claiming that "the level of discomfort caused is insignificant, particularly when compared to the discomfort and problems that result from other common and less widely condemned practices such as sexual promiscuity, nudity and alcohol consumption by other segments of society."

Meanwhile, the Mail reports that Muslim women in Tower Hamlets who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic "extremists" intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain.

How much clearer can it be made that women do not "choose" to wear this hideous monstrosity? The vast majoriy of women who claim to have chosen to don this garb have actually done so because they are surrounded by a culture that perpetuates the fear that if they do not wear it, they will either be physically punished in this world or go to Hell in the next. That's not freedom.

Women who have donned the veil have described its debilitating effects:

When we walked out of the cool souq area into the blazing hot sun, I gasped for breath and sucked furiously through the sheer black fabric. The air tasted stale and dry as it filtered through the thin gauzy cloth. I had purchased the sheerest veil available, yet I felt I was seeing life through a thick screen. How could women see through veils made of a thicker fabric? The sky was no longer blue, the glow of the sun had dimmed; my heart plunged to my stomach when I realized that from that moment, outside my own home I would not experience life as it really is in all its color. The world suddenly seemed a dull place. And dangerous, too! I groped and stumbled along the pitted, cracked sidewalk, fearful of breaking an ankle or leg.

And numerous studies have highlighted the health problems encountered by Muslim women as a specific consequence of lack of exposure to sunlight.

We can therefore conclude two things:

1) The majority of women who wear the Islamic dress do not choose to do so. Their society chooses for them.

2) Any woman who does freely choose to wear this garb is either insane or a masochist.

Girls For Sheep

Please watch this extract from a Swiss documentary about conditions for women in Afghanistan.

And as you watch, bear in mind the appropriate context for this barbarism:

“The Prophet said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: 'O Allah, I ask Thee for the good in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her; I take refuge in Thee from the evil in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her.' When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.” (Abu Dawud b.11, no.2155)

“[The Prophet] married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” (Bukhari v.5, b.58, no. 234, and others)

“Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.” (Qur'an 4:34)

Everyone Does It

As the French ban on public face-coverings (i.e. both religious and non-religious) comes into effect, we can already hear the cries of "Islamophobia!" emanating from victimhood-posturing Muslims and their non-Muslim Leftist allies the world over.

Here are some other "Islamophobic" countries that have in recent history implemented bans on the wearing of the burqa/niqab and other misogynistic Islamic dress in some public places:

Turkey
Tunisia
Syria
Egypt (another example here)

It's anti-Islamic bigotry, I tell you!

Hypocrisy: What Muslims Do Best

We saw it back in 2009, when Muslims whined and complained about the Swiss minaret ban while failing to condemn the lack of freedom for Christians to build churches in the Middle East. We saw it when Sunni Islam's top authority, Al Azhar University, severed all dialogue with the Vatican in protest at the Catholic Church's condemnation of Islamic persecution of Christians, saying that this was an unacceptable "interference" in Muslim internal affairs - even though Al Azhar itself had previously tried to interfere in non-Muslim affairs by calling for the minaret ban to be reversed.

It seems that self-righteous hypocrisy is what Muslims do best.

And as Muslims go on bloody rampages through Afghanistan, killing people in response to the burning of a Qur'an, it is worth recalling a September 2010 article by Daniel Pipes which clarifies the continuing hypocrisy of the Muslim world. The article examines a mainstream Islamic fatwa, or sharia legal ruling, from 2003 which states that Muslims have the right to use the Torah or the Bible as toilet paper. When a German woman noticed this fatwa and called in response for a "Koran toilet paper roll", a scholar from Al Azhar issued another fatwa calling for the "shedding of [her] blood".

And over at Front Page, Raymond Ibrahim has a timely list of recent murders and persecutions of Christians committed by Muslims (not even in response to the Qur'an-burning, just "business as usual" in the Muslim world) - none of which have met with any condemnation at all from Muslims (links in the original):

* Afghanistan: A Muslim convert to Christianity was seized and, according to sharia’s apostasy laws, awaits execution.

* Bangladesh: A Christian man was arrested for distributing Bibles near Muslims. Since Wednesday, thousands of Muslims have been rioting, injuring dozens—not because of Jones, but in protestation of women’s rights.

* Egypt: A Muslim mob burned down another Coptic church and dozens of Christian homes; when Christians protested, the military opened fire on them while crying “Allahu Akbar,” killing nine. Another mob cut a Christian man’s ear off “according to sharia.”

* Ethiopia: Muslims went on a rampage burning down nearly 70 churches, killing at least one Christian, and dislocating as many as 10,000. Christians living in Muslim majority regions are being warned to either convert to Islam, abandon their homes, or die.

* Malaysia: Authorities detained and desecrated thousands of Bibles.

* Pakistan: Two Christians were shot to death as they exited church; a Christian serving life in prison for “blasphemy” died in his cell under suspicions of murder.

* Saudi Arabia: An Eritrean Christian has been arrested for sharing his faith with Muslims and is facing the death penalty; other missionaries continue to languish in Saudi prisons.

* Somalia and Sudan: Christian girls—including a mother of four—were recently abducted, raped, and killed for embracing Christianity.

Ibrahim also points out the obvious media double standard coming from the non-Muslim Western media, which has by and large blamed Terry Jones personally for the murders committed in response to his book burning, while largely ignoring all the above Muslim crimes against humanity:

Such is the surreal and increasingly irrational world we live in, where irate Muslims and groveling Westerners obsess over the destruction of one book while ignoring the destruction of many human lives; where a guaranteed and hard-earned American right—freedom of expression—receives a lot of condemnatory huffing and puffing from those charged with protecting it, while murderous, barbarous—in a word, evil—behavior is devoutly ignored.

A Real Cause For Outrage

If only they knew how much David Petraeus loved them, they'd put out that fire

As much as one comes to accept the staggering dhimmitude of Western leadership when it comes to dealing with Islam, these same dhimmi leaders still have a habit of displaying such spineless amorality that it leaves one with one's jaw on the floor and one's blood boiling.

Take, for example, the response of US military commander General David Petraeus to the wave of murders committed by ordinary Muslims (i.e. not just the Taliban or other "extremist" groups) in Afghanistan following the recent burning of the Qur'an by pastor Terry Jones:

In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important on behalf of ISAF and NATO members in Afghanistan to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Quran and the Muslim faith.

We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Quran.

We also offer condolences to the families of all those injured and killed in violence which occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Quran.

What an unbelievably appalling thing for a military leader in the free world to utter. The burning of the "Holy Qur'an" (holy to who?) is explicitly condemned, but those who slaughtered innocent people and burned churches to the ground because someone set fire to a mass-produced wad of paper are never condemned. Instead, "condolences" are offered to the victims' families, as if they died in some tragic natural disaster.

Petraeus finished with one final insult to the memory of those brave soldiers who have died fighting his Muslim public relations war:

We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.

Sure, because as long as the Afghan people understand that, they won't be driven to murderous violence by someone thousands of miles away burning a book, right?

Right?

Petraeus is a disgrace and should be fired immediately for his outrageous and cowardly statements.