GERMANY’S “RAPEFUGEE” CRISIS

By Stephen Brown

“Why should we children have to grow up in such fear?”

That is the very reasonable question 16-year-old German teenager Bibi Wilhailm asks, in her 20-minute YouTube video, garnering her some much-needed recognition in cyberspace. Her video had first appeared on Facebook, but was taken down for reasons that still remain unclear.

But Wilhailm doesn’t seem to care too much for fame. In her first ever YouTube appearance, she says she only wants her old life back. It is a life that she describes as “toll” (fantastic), before Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed one million, mostly male and Muslim, refugees into Germany last fall. Since then, Wilhailm says, “life has become very unsafe on the streets for young women like me and my friends.”

“This is the truth. We are no longer allowed to walk outside,” said Wilhailm. “We are no longer allowed to wear our clothes. We are no longer allowed to live the German life. This is the sad truth.”

Wilhaim’s fears are neither unfounded nor exaggerated. A security official as prominent as the police chief of Vienna, Gerhard Purstl, confirmed Wilhailm’s claim when he warned women not to venture out at night alone and to “avoid suspicious-looking areas.” Purstl’s warning came after several sex attacks in Austria by migrants.

If anyone possessed any doubts about Muslim migrant attitudes toward the ‘infidel’ women of their host countries, these doubts should have been painfully and publicly dispelled last New Year’s Eve at Cologne’s central train station. A thousand of the new arrivals, mostly young Arab men, gathered there that evening and, like packs of hyenas, molested hundreds of women, raping several.

“We are so scared,” said Wilhailm, expressing the fear young women are now forced to face. “We don’t want to be scared to go to the grocery store alone after sunset.”

Since the Muslim migrants’ appearance in Germany, Wilhailm says, “life has been hell. These men often commit verbal and physical acts of sexual violence against women out alone.” She says she herself has had a couple of bad experiences.

“But one day, a terrible thing happened at the supermarket,” Wilhailm said. “I ran all the way home. I was so frightened for my life. There’s no other way to describe it.”

Another time, men she called “Muslims” told her and her friend they were “sluts” for wearing t-shirts. Addressing Muslim men of this ilk in her video, Wilhailm responded:

“You have no right to attack us because we are wearing t-shirts. You also have no right to rape.”

Unfortunately, for Germany’s young women, there are too many new migrants who believe that they do.

Earlier this month, police in Dortmund reported that a migrant approached a girl on the street, offering her money for sex. He explained his behavior to her as German girls are “just there for sex.”

An article by Soeren Kern, published in the Gatestone Institute last September, before Merkel’s great refugee wave, bears this out. Kern provides a list of rapes committed by migrants in Germany. It makes for disturbing and heartbreaking reading. “Growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East,” writes Kern. “Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.”

There are also additional reasons why police, media and politicians cover up or obfuscate migrant rapes and crimes. One is that they do not want to give those originally opposed to this migrant invasion the opportunity to say: “I told you so.”…

More

Jihad Comes to Philadelphia (David Wood)

Anni Cyrus Moment: Divorce and a Death Sentence Under Sharia.

Islam, rape, and the fate of Western women

By Carol Brown

Muslim men rape non-Muslim women (and girls) in disproportionately high numbers in countries with growing Muslim minority populations. Rape of infidel women is part of Islamic law and Islamic tradition. As such, it’s been going on for centuries.

This article is about the current threat Muslim rapists pose to non-Muslim women. In order to keep this article to a reasonable length, the focus is on the rape epidemic in Europe, but suffice it to say rape jihad is a gruesome reality the world over.

Perhaps there is no European country where rape has reached epidemic proportions as it has in Sweden, a country now known as the “rape capital” of Europe. Sweden ranks Number 2 on the global list of rape countries. From 1975 to present, rape in Sweden has increased 1472%. Based on this model, it is now projected that one in four Swedish women (and sometimes little girls) will be raped. Rape of men and boys is also on the rise.

Making this nightmarish situation worse, the authorities hide what’s going on, make outlandish excuses for it, and/or side with the rapists. Dhimmitude has taken hold. Few, if any, will state the truth: that the majority of rapes in Sweden are committed by Muslim males….

….In Denmark, more than half of convicted rapists are Muslims. In Norway, there has been a dramatic spike in rapes. In Oslo, 10% of females over the age of 15 have been raped by Muslim men with Muslim men guilty of 100% of the rapes against Norwegian women. Rape in Oslo is now so common that hotels hand out key chain alarms when people check in and increasingly Norwegian women only go out in groups. As is the case throughout the West, anyone who speaks the truth about this is labeled a “racist.”

(To learn more about rape jihad across Europe, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Meanwhile, in the face of this savagery, our political leaders, the media, academics, Muslims, feminists, and/or garden variety lemmings assert that Islam respects women, that it does not sanction the mistreatment of women, and/or that Western culture is a rape culture on par with ISIS. But no matter how persistently or how deeply these fools keep their increasingly vulnerable heads in the sand, it will not change reality. Quite the opposite. By denying the truth, these liars, apologists, and moral relativists fuel violence, rape, torture, enslavement, and death.

We must (more than) make up for the damage they inflict. So let us get about the task of educating others to make sure this reality does not take hold in America. Let us do our part to make sure that women and girls in the United States do not wind up victims of rape jihad.

More

 

Watch What Happens When 3 Muslim Spokesmen Are Asked About Islam’s Death Penalty for Apostasy

By Robert Spencer

A recent episode of the BBC program The Big Questions was anomalous: instead of pumping out more of the usual fog of obfuscation and denial regarding the aspects of Islamic law incompatible with Western standards of human rights and human dignity — as do most BBC shows — it actually featured an honest discussion of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy.

Or it would have, that is, if the Muslim spokesmen on the show had been remotely honest about that penalty. Instead, they offered an instructive case study in how Islamic supremacists deal with uncomfortable aspects of Islam when speaking with infidels.

Despite denials from Muslims in the West, Islam’s death penalty for those who leave the faith is abundantly established.

The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated:

The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.

There is only disagreement over whether the law applies only to men, or to women also — some authorities hold that apostate women should not be killed, but only imprisoned in their houses until death.

The BBC program begins with ex-Muslim Amal Farah of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) and several Muslim spokesmen discussing Islamic law’s death penalty for apostasy. Farah, despite her affiliation with CEMB — which is often more concerned with smearing and demonizing genuine critics of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism than with actually defending apostates from Islam — is the one sane and rational voice in the discussion.

The Muslim spokesmen, by contrast, practice various forms of evasion and deflection, claiming victim status repeatedly. Abdullah al-Andalusi of the ironically named Muslim Debate Initiative is the worst, ascribing Islam’s death penalty for apostasy to “Victorian translations,” claiming that it is only a law in “post-colonial secular states,” and pouting that the BBC is conducting an “Inquisition court.” Note also how he dodges the question of whether or not he condemns the words of UK imam Haitham al-Haddad, who has defended the death penalty for apostasy…

More

ISIS DEMANDS WOMEN WEAR DOUBLE-LAYERED VEILS, ALLOW 9-YEAR-OLDS TO MARRY

by MARY CHASTAIN

….But mass confusion is caused when all the women are covered from head to toe.

“I went once with my wife to one of the old souqs [open-air marketplace] to do some shopping, and after a short while I lost her among the crowd,” said Sabah Nadiem, a resident of Mosul, Iraq. “The problem was that all the women were wearing veils and it was hard to know who was my wife. I was utterly scared to make a mistake and go for the wrong woman. It would be a disaster to fall into Hisbah hands. I could not even use my mobile as the network was down.”

The Islamic State has published numerous manuals concerning the “proper” behavior for women in their caliphate. In December, the group released a manual for fellow jihadists on how to beat, rape, and fail to impregnate their female slaves. Another manual, titled Women of the Islamic State: Manifesto and Case Study, specifically details to women how to behave.

“It is always preferable for a woman to remain hidden and veiled, to maintain society from behind this veil,” it said.

Marriage rules are the most disturbing part of the manifesto.

“It is considered legitimate for a girl to be married at the age of nine,” it claims. “Most pure girls will be married by 16 or 17, while they are still young and active. Young men will not be more than 20 years old in those glorious generations.”

An all-female Islamic State brigade is known to also enforce Sharia law within the caliphate. In December, they used a bear trap known as a “biter” on women’s breasts who defied the protocols of the terrorist group. The torture device was used on one woman who was arrested in public for breastfeeding with a transparent niqab. After the jihadists took over Mosul, Iraq, they demanded all shopowners place a veil on mannequins, even the males, since “the human form is not depicted in statues or artwork.”

More

The Morning After

by Mark Steyn

…And then, a generation or so back, the Cameronian elites in Britain and on the Continent committed themselves to a process of mass, transformative immigration on a scale unknown to any society in human history outside of conquest. “Multiculturalism” is a Trojan horse Europe gave itself in an act of moral vanity, and waiting inside was Islam.

Mr Cameron now insists that the lesson of yesterday’s attack is that “we must never allow” what he dignifies as his “values” to be “damaged” by such “acts of violence”. His counterpart in Copenhagen, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the tasty Danish pastry he and Obama spent Mandela’s funeral doing selfies with, professed herself mystified by the slaughter:

We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.

Hmm. “Forces that want to harm Denmark”, huh? Any chance of pinning it down a little? It’s not much of a “freedom of expression” or a “belief in liberty” that can’t even talk honestly about its enemies, is it?

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…

I said above that waiting inside multiculturalism’s Trojan horse was Islam. Not “Islamism”, or “radical Islam”, or “extremist Islam”, or “violent extremism” or “extremist radicalism” or “radicalist violentism” or anything else: just Islam. As I wrote yesterday:

This is usually the point at which we’re expected to do the not-all-Muslims-want-to-shoot-you-dead shtick. And that’s true. But Islam itself has no feeling whatsoever for the spirit of free speech.

The more Islamic a society gets, the less free speech it has – the less intellectual inquiry, artistic achievement, contrarian spirit. Most western Muslims are not willing themselves to open fire on synagogues or Lars Vilks, but they help maintain the shriveled definition of acceptable expression that helps license the fanatics of Copenhagen and Paris. Muslims in Europe, North America and Australia will pay lip service to “free speech”, and then promptly re-define it as excluding speech that “blasphemes” or “insults” their faith – which is to say them. Which is to say the great vulgar, brawling, free-for-all of free societies does not apply to them. So, when, say, France’s Muslim population reaches 20 per cent, you will need to have the support of three-quarters of the remaining 80 per cent to maintain even a bare popular majority in favor of free speech.

Is that likely? Or will there be more and more non-Muslims like the wretched quisling Welsh bishop, the Right Reverend Gregory Cameron, frantically arguing that if you hadn’t been so “offensive” you wouldn’t have caught their eye? Islam and free speech are, as His Miserable Grace implicitly recognizes, incompatible. And ultimately, therefore, you have to choose between liberty and mass Muslim immigration.

The reaction of David Cameron and Helle Thorning-Schmidt suggests they have made their choice. I think, somewhere deep down, they know it’s a recipe for slow societal suicide. And I wonder if, even deeper down, they also know that it won’t be that slow.

More