ISIS: “‘I rejoiced when we had our first sex slave, forced sex ISN’T rape and they should be thankful”

May 22, 2015
Don't these women look happy?

Don’t these women look happy?

(Graphic via Raymond Ibrahim)

I’m at a loss of words to describe the twisted evil that is ISIS. All I can say is “kill them all.”

ISIS has released a chilling document in which it justifies the kidnapping and rape of slave girls – and brands Michelle Obama a prostitute whose ‘price won’t even exceed a third of a dinar’.

These shocking admissions are made by a jihadi bride in the ninth edition of its propaganda magazine Dabiq, in a feature entitled: ‘Slave girls or prostitutes.’

For years Islamic State has been enslaving and sexually abusing the women it captures – particularly from Iraq’s minority Yazidi community – and sending the ‘prettiest virgins’ to depraved auctions, a United Nations envoy claimed this week.

ISIS has not only confirmed this to be true, but the terror group justifies the cruel sex crimes as Sunnah, which roughly translates as ‘a way of life’.

A counter-terrorism expert told MailOnline that this was another example of how ISIS is twisting the holy text to recruit young male fighters – who often can’t get wives in their own countries – by telling them their spoils of war will be women.

That last is simply not true: sexual slavery of infidel women (and the Yazidi women count as infidels) is justified in both the Qur’an and the hadiths (the sayings and deeds of Muhammad). Robert Spencer provides several examples. Here’s one:

The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. 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. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “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 23:1-6)

Be sure to read the rest.

Meanwhile, let me pull from my shelf the “Reliance of the Traveler,” a manual of Islamic law certified by al-Azhar university, one of the chief intellectual authorities of Sunni Islam. Section o9-13 (p.604):

“When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”

In other words, she is war booty — possessed “by the right hand” (the sword hand)– and is her captor’s to use as he wishes, including sexually. This is from a sharia law manual certified as in accord with Sunni practice and faith in 1991. The unnamed expert may know what  he’s talking about when it comes to counter-terrorism, but he’s ignorant or fooling himself when it comes to Islamic law.

Back to the joy infidel women should feel when subjected to rape — pardon me, “forced sex” — by Muslim men, the woman (sic!) who wrote the Dabiq article goes on:

The hate-filled rant is penned by a suspected jihadi bride named Umm Sumayyah Al-Muhajirah, who called for her ‘sisters’ to emigrate to Syria and become wives to Islamic State extremists in the previous edition of Dabiq.

(…)

And she openly admits that ISIS has plundered villages and kidnapped women, saying: ‘As for the slave-girl that was taken by the swords of men following the cheerful warrior then her enslavement is in opposition to human rights and copulation with her is rape?!

‘What is wrong with you? How do you make such a judgment? What is your religion? What is your law? Rather, tell me who is your lord?’

‘Allah has opened the lands for His awliya [supporter], so they entered and dispersed within the lands, killing the fighters of the kuffar [non-believer], capturing their women, and enslaving their children.’

She angrily adds: ‘I write this while the letters drip of pride… We have indeed raided and captured the kafirah women, and drove them like sheep by the edge of the sword.’

Sumayyah Al-Muhajirah expresses deep disappointment to Islamic State fanatics who refuted the mass kidnappings of Yazidi girls, saying: ‘So the supporters started denying the matter as if the soldiers of the Khilafah [Caliphate] had committed a mistake or evil.’

Emphasis added. She’s partially right. The jihadis of ISIS aren’t misunderstanding Islam, they are not insane, but they are evil. These brave knights of Allah are instead operating under a wholly different paradigm from the post-Enlightenment West, a paradigm under which what they are doing is right and is justified by their holy texts, no “twisting” needed. ISIS is practicing Islam and jihad as Muhammad intended.

I said last night on Twitter that there are some evils in the world that must be fought for their evil, regardless of geopolitics or national interests. This new “Caliphate” is just such an evil.

ISIS needs to be destroyed.

via Jihad Watch

UPDATE: Dear God. Those monsters burned a woman alive because she wouldn’t perform “an extreme sex act.” (h/t Amy Otto)

RELATED: If you want to enjoy (?) a bitter laugh, compare the above to the feminist pearl-clutching about the so-called “rape culture” in the US that my blog-buddy Sister Toldjah rants about in one of her latest posts.


American soldiers kill ISIS commander, rescue slave. Yeah, we’re still the Good Guys.

May 16, 2015
"X"

“Nice work.”

John Wayne would be proud: Kick in the door, kill the bad guy, and free his captive.

Boom.

U.S. commandos mounted a rare raid into eastern Syria overnight, killing a senior Islamic State commander in a firefight, capturing his wife and rescuing a Yazidi woman held as a slave, the Pentagon said Saturday.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the raid, identifying the militant as Abu Sayyaf. He said no U.S. forces were killed or injured in the operation.

(…)

A U.S. defense official said the raid was conducted overnight Friday (Friday evening Washington time) by a team of Army Delta commandos who flew from Iraq into eastern Syria aboard V-22 Osprey aircraft and Blackhawk helicopters.

Upon arrival at the target, which was a multi-story building, the Americans met stiff resistance. A “fairly intense firefight” ensued, including hand-to-hand combat, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of the raid by name.

The U.S. estimates that about a dozen IS fighters were killed but no civilians were wounded, even though women and children were present. The Americans returned to their base unharmed by about midnight Washington time.

The IS leader who was killed was a Tunisian national designated by IS as the organization’s “emir of oil and gas,” according to the U.S. official.

(…)

The statement said the commandos rescued a young Yazidi woman “who appears to have been held as a slave” by the slain militant and his wife. IS militants captured hundreds of members of the Yazidi religious minority in northern Iraq during their rampage across the country last summer.

The target was apparently at an oil and gas facility that some elements of Syrian state media also claim was attacked by Syrian forces, though not all government organs broadcast the news. It’s possible this raid was carried out in conjunction with the Syrians: it wouldn’t be the first time enemies have cooperated to take out a mutual foe. The subsequent silence and denials might have been to keep this occasional cooperation clandestine, as certain other parties might not be happy to learn that Washington and Damascus were talking. In that case, the single mention was an accidental “blabbing.”

Or, the Assad team was simply trying to grab some credit. It will probably be a long time before we know, if ever.

Regardless, a rare “well done” to President Obama for ordering this operation, to our commandos for their valor (never rare), and good wishes for the former slave as she recovers from her ordeal.


Bookshelf update: Anne Applebaum’s “Gulag”

January 22, 2015

Renaissance scholar astrologer

I’ve updated the “What I’m reading” widget to the right to reflect the latest item on the Public Secrets lectern, Anne Applebaum’s “Gulag: A History.”

 

book cover applebaum gulag

I’ve only just started it, so I can’t comment on my impressions of the writing or the quality of the Kindle formatting, but the topic is compelling: a complete history of the Soviet prison camp and slave labor system from its foundation under Lenin to its final dissolution in the 1980s. Like reading a book on the Holocaust, I suspect this is the kind of history that will have me hating humanity by its end. Gulag is available in both Kindle and softcover formats.

PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. Wouldn’t you?


John Brown: freedom fighter or rebel?

October 16, 2014

506px-John_brown_abo

Today is the 155th anniversary of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry. Brown, a fanatical abolitionist, seized the Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in the hope of fomenting a slave insurrection. The Marines – lead, ironically, by Army Colonel Robert E. Lee – suppressed the rebellion after three days. Brown and several of his surviving comrades were swiftly tried and hanged. Interestingly, the crime for which Brown was executed was not treason against the United States, but treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wonder how many states still have treason statutes?

I’ve always had mixed feelings about John Brown. On the one hand, he was a fanatic, a rebel against the United States, and an insurrectionist who hoped to spark a slave revolt that surely would have cost thousands of innocent lives. On the other hand, the evil that lead him to his rebellion, the abomination against which he held a fanatical hatred, was slavery. While I can’t approve the means, I can surely sympathize with the motives. Those mixed feelings were felt much more intensely in the 1850s, and John Brown’s raid was the first flaring of the fire that would break out in civil war just two years later.

(Note: this is a republication of a post from 2009 that I thought worth sharing again.)


Russia’s North Korean slaves

December 16, 2011

Citizen! Have I got a job for you!

An appalling, but sadly unsurprising revelation at The Daily Caller that the world’s largest prison camp masquerading as a nation, North Korea, rents out its own people as slaves in Siberian camps:

Q. In this Vice Guide you are traveling not to North Korea, but into the Siberian region of Russia where the North Koreans have outsourced North Korean workers to the Russian state. Call me crazy, but it appears that the Russian government is essentially participating in a modern day slavery racket, no?

A. Correct. The Russians are making money. The North Korean state is making money. The companies using the slave labor are making money. Everyone is making money save the people actually doing the work. Long live the revolution!!

Q. Tell me about these prison camps? What are the North Koreans doing there?

A. They are forced to live and work in the middle of nowhere, under horrific conditions for 10 year periods, for little or no money, under threat that if they run away their whole families will be put into similar work camps in the Homeland.

Q. And the camps are made to resemble life in North Korea, right?

A. Some of the workers actually think they are still in concentration camps in DPRK even though they are thousands of miles away. Why? Because all they see are trees and villages that look EXACTLY the same as they do in DPRK. They have the same propaganda, the same newspapers, they have the same types of buildings, everything. It’s quite eerie actually.

Oh, and if these figure out where they are and try to escape? Their families back home get a one-way ticket to North Korea’s gulag.

Kim Jong-Il and Valdimir Putin: a partnership made in Hell.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming skeptics support slavery

October 28, 2010

Don’t take my word for it; ask the guy with the PhD. According to Dr. Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan, those of us who don’t support the (increasingly shot full of holes) theory of anthropogenic global warming are the moral equivalent of those who defended slavery:

The American public is still mired in doubt about the science and the economics of climate change, he said, but is ready for the kind of social shift that eventually brought success to the abolition movement of the 18th and 19th centuries.

“Just as few people saw a moral problem with slavery in the 18th century, few people in the 21st century see a moral problem with the burning of fossil fuels,” Professor Hoffman said. “Will people in 100 years look at us with the same incomprehension we feel toward 18th-century defenders of slavery?”

So, let’s see. In recent years, those of us who are skeptical of climate change as anything other than a poorly understood series of natural cycles have been called “deniers,” a deliberate comparison to Holocaust denial; we’ve been labeled traitors to the planet; and it’s been suggested we be put on trial. I’m sure I’m forgetting something. Regardless, having resorted all these smear cards, why not deal the “slavery card,” too? It’s an easy way to delegitimize the skeptics, make one feel all warm and superior inside, and keeps Green Statists from having to deal with the actual science.

I could go on a real rant here, but The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway beat me to it. I’ll give him the final word on our Enlightened Moral Superior:

I don’t know what’s more offensive, the idea that skepticism of global warming is a moral injustice on par with slavery, or the fact that those people pushing global warming think of themselves in such incredibly self-righteous terms where they’re the ones saving humanity from itself. If Environmentalists wonder why their credibility is shot, perhaps they should stop with the doomsday propaganda and come up with a better solution to the global warming problem than making my monthly utility bills cost more than the gross national product of Burkina Faso.

My only disagreement is that there is no global warming problem at all. Other than that, spot on.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sowell: slavery, distorted history, and filtered facts

April 27, 2010

At Real Clear Politics, a curious incident leads Thomas Sowell to think about how the history of slavery is taught, and how its one-sided presentation leads to the wrong lessons:

Just as Europeans enslaved Africans, North Africans enslaved Europeans– more Europeans than there were Africans enslaved in the United States and in the 13 colonies from which it was formed.

The treatment of white galley slaves was even worse than the treatment of black slaves picking cotton. But there are no movies or television dramas about it comparable to “Roots,” and our schools and colleges don’t pound it into the heads of students.

The inhumanity of human beings toward other human beings is not a new story, much less a local story. There is no need to hide it, because there are lessons we can learn from it. But there is also no need to distort it, so that sins of the whole human species around the world are presented as special defects of “our society” or the sins of a particular race.

If American society and Western civilization are different from other societies and civilization, it is that they eventually turned against slavery, and stamped it out, at a time when non-Western societies around the world were still maintaining slavery and resisting Western pressures to end slavery, including in some cases armed resistance.

Only the fact that the West had more firepower than others put an end to slavery in many non-Western societies during the age of Western imperialism. Yet today there are Americans who have gone to Africa to apologize for slavery– on a continent where slavery has still not been completely ended, to this very moment.

Sowell argues that those teaching only one aspect of the story of slavery, how America enslaved Africans, for example, are doing so because they have an agenda: the derogation and slighting of the civilization in which they live. They also miss the real story, that of the dangers inherent in letting one group of people have unconstrained power over another.

And thus they do their students no favors.


Political gum on the governor’s shoe

April 7, 2010

Power Line reports on Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s proclamation in commemoration of Confederate soldiers and the political problems it’s caused him. Issuing such a declaration isn’t something I would have done; good men can fight for bad causes, but I doubt they should be honored for it. That is a matter open to argument, however, and it isn’t the real problem here. What may well land McDonnell in genuine hot water is his failure to include the usual denunciation of slavery:

So far, so good. McDonnell’s two Democratic predecessors refused to issue this proclamation, first given by George Allen when he was governor. But those who fought for the South were mostly honorable (and in many cases even heroic) men, even though they were on the wrong side. They deserve a proclamation.

Unfortunately, McDonnell decided to remove anti-slavery language from the proclamation. George Allen’s original proclamation did not contain such language, but Gov. Jim Gilmore added it. McDonnell explained its omission from his proclamation this way:


  • “There were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.”


This attempt to give Virginia a pass on the issue of slavery is historically untenable and, I must add, rather offfensive. It also seems like bad politics.

To put it mildly. The last thing the Republican Party needs as it tries to work its way back to respectability is to minimize the role of slavery and its aftereffects in American History. Does McDonnell really want to feed the historic  lie that the Democratic Party is the only party for Black voters? And what kind of spot does this put Black conservatives in?

I’m not saying McDonnell defends slavery, the Confederacy’s rebellion to preserve slavery, or that he himself is a racist. Not at all, nor in any way by implication. But to downgrade what was the core conflict behind all other conflicts in that war and the political disputes that lead to it is to show a sad ignorance of American History and a consequent bumbling insensitivity toward a significant part of the population.

Let me put it this way: the Confederacy was founded to preserve and expand slavery; all other reasons, including “states’ rights” (what we now call “federalism”), were secondary to that and served as shields in the fight to protect slavery. In using those shields, the Confederacy did everlasting harm to the cause of limited government and federalism by giving statists and progressives a brush with which to paint limited government advocates as closet racists. (Witness the smearing of tea-party supporters and ObamaCare foes that been going on for just the last year. And that’s just one, sad example.)

Yet those ideas have gained renewed respectability and popularity in recent decades, especially since the progressive statists came to power with Obama’s election and started to act like hyperactive children on a sugar high. More and more people are taking to the idea that limited, federalist government, kept as local to the people as practicable, best empowers individuals and preserves their liberty. Rising stars with national exposure like Governor McDonnell should keep that in mind and be careful of what they say, lest they reinvigorate the statists.

LINKS: More at Hot Air and Sister Toldjah.

UPDATE: Governor McDonnell did the right thing later today, amending his proclamation and apologizing.


Is Harry Reid a louse or just stupid?

December 8, 2009

I suppose both could be true, given the pettiness and ignorance needed to describe opponents of nationalized medicine as the equivalent of those who opposed civil rights or defended slavery:

Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

And if you need to see it to believe it, here’s the video:

Harry needs more than a few lessons in History. For  starters, when Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he was a Democrat. The act itself was proposed by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

But, let’s not stop there. The Democrats have a long and dirty history with civil rights that’s largely been swept under the carpet. Prior to the Civil War, it was the Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and pushed for its expansion. They were so closely tied to slavery that they had effectively married the issue and become almost a Southern regional party. After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacist groups that attacked Black and other Republican citizens and office-holders was founded by Democrats and, after Reconstruction ended, functioned as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to enforce an apartheid regime in the Jim Crow South.

And that’s not all. Democrats fought against all federal anti-lynching legislation for 90 years until 1964. It was a Democratic “progressive” President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced segregation to the Federal government.  FDR’s New Deal labor policies sent Black unemployment skyrocketing. And it was a Democratic senator, the honorable Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Oh, and he had been a recruiter for the Klan, too.

This is nowhere near the whole story of the Democrats, slavery, and race relations. Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race is a well-written, heavily documented summary. I recommend it for a good eye-opening.

Really, though, Reid’s odious dismissals of legitimate political opposition are only the latest in a long line of attempts by Democrat leaders in recent years to defeat their opponents through smears and waving the bloody shirt, not through the strength of their policy arguments. The late Senator Kennedy infamously slandered Judge Robert Bork from the floor of the Senate upon learning of Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas was accused of being a base sexual harasser during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Senators Kennedy and Durbin compared American troops to Nazis and followers of Saddam Hussein during the abu Ghraib scandal, way out of proportion to what really happened. And this last summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared American citizens exercising their legitimate rights to protest ObamaCare to Nazis.

And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans (and some fence-sitting Democrats?) who are representing their constituents -exercising legitimate opposition to nationalized health care and making use of all the parliamentary tools available to senators- are comparable to defenders of slavery and the oppression of women.

It just goes to show how bankrupt their arguments are. They can’t win on the merits of cost, economics, or politics – the facts are all against them, as are a majority of the American people. So, instead they hurl rhetorical bombs and hope that cows moderates and conservatives into submission.

How pathetic.

Regarding the question in the subject line, I still haven’t decided if it’s either-or or both, but it looks like Nevadans have realized they’re being represented by a schmuck: polls have the Majority Leader well behind both likely Republican opponents.

Good. Maybe they’ll finally rid the Senate of that smell.

LINKS: More from Legal Insurrection, Hot Air, and Big Government.

UPDATEReid doubles-down on his stupidity. (via Matt Lewis)


Freedom fighter or rebel?

October 16, 2009

506px-John_brown_abo

Today is the 150th anniversary of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry. Brown, a fanatical abolitionist, seized the Federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, in the hope of fomenting a slave insurrection. The Marines – lead, ironically, by Army Colonel Robert E. Lee – suppressed the rebellion after three days. Brown and several of his surviving comrades were swiftly tried and hanged. Interestingly, the crime for which Brown was executed was not treason against the United States, but treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wonder how many states still have treason statutes?

I’ve always had mixed feelings about John Brown. On the one hand, he was a fanatic, a rebel against the United States, and an insurrectionist who hoped to spark a slave revolt that surely would have cost thousands of innocent lives. On the other hand, the evil that lead him to his rebellion, the abomination against which he held a fanatical hatred, was slavery. While I can’t approve the means, I can surely sympathize with the motives. Those mixed feelings were felt much more intensely in the 1850s, and John Brown’s raid was the first flaring of the fire that would break out in civil war just two years later.


Hunt them down and kill them all

August 7, 2009

I don’t care who you are or what your cause is: if you belong to an organization that can do this to a child, you don’t just deserve to die, you need to die:

Like many young boys, Khidir loves playing with toy cars and wants to be a policeman like his father when he grows up. But it was his father’s very job that caused the tiny child to suffer the unimaginable.

Khidir was just 6 years old when he was savagely ripped away from his family, kidnapped by al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

“They beat me with a shovel, they pulled my teeth out with pliers, they would go like this and pull it,” said Khidir, now 8, demonstrating with his hands. “And they would make me work on the farm gathering carrots.”

What followed was even more horrific, an ordeal that would last for two years in captivity. Khidir and his father spoke to CNN recently, more than half a year after his rescue by Iraqi police.

“This is where they hammered a nail into my leg and then they pulled it out,” he says, lifting up his pant leg to show a tiny wound.

He says his captors also pulled out each of his tiny fingernails, broke both his arms, and beat him repeatedly on the side of the head with a shovel. He still suffers chronic headaches. He remembers them laughing as they inflicted the pain.

“I would think about my mommy and daddy,” he replies, when asked how he managed to get through the agony.

Excuse me while I go get sick.

LINKS: Michael Yon provides more examples of al-Qaeda’s barbarity: Bless the beasts and the children.