DENVER, July 30–New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins.
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”
Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).
“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.
When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”
Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt under the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”
As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”
The video is the latest by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Elected officials need to listen to the public outcry for an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while the 10 state investigations and 3 Congressional committees determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby parts.” Daleiden continues, “Planned Parenthood’s recent call for the NIH to convene an expert panel to ‘study’ fetal experimentation is absurd after suggestions from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Ginde that ‘research’ can be used as a catch-all to cover-up baby parts sales. The biggest problem is bad actors like Planned Parenthood who hold themselves above the law in order to harvest and make money off of aborted fetal brains, hearts, and livers.”
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.
During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt.”
After the hearing, Judge Sullivan issued the following “minute order”:
At the July 29, 2015 status hearing, the Government agreed that the Court’s July 1, 2015 oral order from the bench was clear and enforceable. Nonetheless, the Government reasoned it inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration until a written order was issued. As expressed at the hearing, the Government’s reasoning is nonsensical. Officers of the Court who fail to comply with Court orders will be held in contempt. Also, in the event of non-compliance with future Court orders, the Commissioner of the IRS and others shall be directed to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt of Court. The Court’s July 1, 2015 ruling from the bench stands: (1) the Government shall produce relevant documents every Monday; (2) the Government’s document production shall be accompanied by a status report that indicates (a) whether TIGTA has turned over any new documents to the IRS, (b) if so, the number of documents, and (c) a timeframe for the IRSs production of those documents. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2015.
At a July 1, 2015, status conference, Sullivan ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status report of the Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a status hearing today after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders to release the newly discovered Lerner emails and status updates on its production of previously “missing” documents.
The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.
Yesterday, Judicial Watch released the first batch believed to be newly recovered emails of Lerner. The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.
“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.”
With Islam, how it is possible to dialogue with a faith that denies the divinity of Christ, regards the Bible as corrupt, believes that all Christians are the inferiors of Muslims and are destined to hell fire? What is there to talk about if both sides are to be honest about their beliefs?
When members of ISIS murder apostates, it is hard to condemn them, as that is what the Prophet did. When they take slave girls as war booty, that is what the Prophet did. Waging jihad is an injunction in many chapters of the Qur’an.
I do not know what copy of the Qur’an Pope Francis has been shown, but it is clearly very different to any copy in my possession, whether the original Arabic or a translation.
When hate preachers in British mosques convey a violent or intolerant message to their congregants, they do so by quoting the Qur’an as the Word of God, thereby sanctioning acts of jihad. To ignore this is to hamper us in our efforts to bring Muslims into peaceful relations with the West, with all non-Muslims and especially with one another.
What was striking was that, instead of successive generations of Muslims becoming better integrated into British society, the younger they are, the more radical they become. Apparently the majority of Muslims do not feel particularly progressive.
Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust happened. 62% of Muslims here do not support freedom of speech. Only 7% of Muslims in the UK consider themselves as British first. CSP Poll this year reported that 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. Figures such these are indicative of a wider level of acceptance of extreme ideas than your comments and those of many politicians suggest.
On June 19, when Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke at the 2015 Global Security Forum in Bratislava, one section (under the heading ‘Clarity’) drew widespread attention from the media and politicians, and from some the religious realm.
In that passage, Cameron spoke about the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL, or, in Arabic, Da’ish). “In ISIL,” he started, “we have one of the biggest threats our world has faced.” He went on to express concern about the way in which young British Muslims were being drawn into the ISIS web through the internet or within their communities:
The cause is ideological. It is an Islamist extremist ideology — one that says the West is bad and democracy is wrong that women are inferior, that homosexuality is evil. It says religious doctrine trumps the rule of law and Caliphate trumps nation state and it justifies violence in asserting itself and achieving its aims.
The question is: how do people arrive at this worldview?
How does someone who has had all the advantages of a British or a European schooling, a loving family, the freedom and equality that allow them to be who they want to be turn to a tyrannical, murderous, evil regime?
There are, of course, many reasons – and to tackle them we have to be clear about them. I am clear that one of the reasons is that there are people who hold some of these views who don’t go as far as advocating violence, but who do buy into some of these prejudices giving the extreme Islamist narrative weight and telling fellow Muslims, “you are part of this”.
This paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent. To go from listening to firebrand preachers online to boarding a plane to Istanbul and travelling onward to join the jihadis. We’ve always had angry young men and women buying into supposedly revolutionary causes. This one is evil; it is contradictory; it is futile – but it is particularly potent today.
I think part of the reason it’s so potent is that it has been given this credence.
So if you’re a troubled boy who is angry at the world, or a girl looking for an identity, for something to believe in and there’s something that is quietly condoned online, or perhaps even in parts of your local community, then it’s less of a leap to go from a British teenager to an ISIL fighter or an ISIL wife, than it would be for someone who hasn’t been exposed to these things.
For what may be the first time, a head of state dared to make a connection between ordinary Muslims and extremism, by arguing that fundamentalist views might be quietly condoned online, or perhaps even in parts of a local Muslim community.
A report written in 2007 by this author for the British think tank Policy Exchange, titled “The Hijacking of British Islam,” exposed the existence of hate literature in mosques across the UK. As soon as it was published, all hell broke loose, and everything possible was done to pretend that our evidence had been somehow faked. Many British writers and journalists such as Douglas Murray, Samuel Westrop and myself have tried over the years to draw attention to the realities of Islamic ideology and practice in schools, shari’a courts, and in politics, but we were severally rebuffed.
But now, over one thousand young British men and women have travelled to Syria and Iraq to support the Islamic State, and it is becoming clear to everyone that something is amiss — not with British society, values or aspirations, but in parts of our two million strong Muslim community. Innes Bowen’s study of the UK Muslim population, “Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam,” shows in some detail just where these radical influences may come from.
Inevitably, Cameron’s references to the Muslim community brought condemnation from the usual suspects (and one unusual one). Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of a Muslim think tank, the Ramadhan Foundation, found the remarks “deeply offensive.” The Muslim Council of Britain found Cameron’s statement “wrong and counter-productive.” In a radio interview, Muslim Labour MP Yasmin Qureshi argued that, “To make the comparison he has done the way he has done, it is not only unhelpful but actually wrong.” Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who sits in the House of Lords, described the speech as “misguided” and “demoralizing.”
That Muslim leaders might respond this way was not surprising. Muslims in the UK, with several notable exceptions such as Haras Rafiq and Majid Nawaz, have been in denial for decades, and show few signs of facing up to the dangers facing them any time soon.
The unusual rebuke came, not from a Muslim, but from Britain’s most important Catholic prelate,Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster. Speaking on LBC Radio on the day of Cameron’s speech, the Archbishop spoke unfavourably about the Prime Minister’s remarks on Muslims. His remarks bear quoting almost in full here:
The interviewer started by saying that “he [Cameron] seems to be laying this squarely at the door of the Muslim community. Too many people in the UK are sliding into violent extremism. He’s warned that British Muslims risk quietly condoning ISIS. Do you think that’s fair?”
To this, Nichols answered:
No. I think the community is a very diverse community. I was at a Muslim meeting last Saturday week. It was a Shi’a Muslim meeting. It was looking at dialogue and how people live together. And then they were absolute in their condemnation of ISIS. So there are many voices, Muslim voices in this country, that condemn ISIS and condemn it absolutely. We don’t hear those [voices] in the public media very often, but they’re there. It is an enormous challenge to Islam in this country, and I know many of the Muslim leaders are deeply, deeply concerned about this. I would say for most of them and the families they represent, they feel a bit helpless in terms of the access to the Internet and to that whole seduction and manipulation that goes on. I think they need help with that.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster (center). Image source: Catholic Church England and Wale
On the face of it, the Archbishop’s remarks are worthy of respect, since he is active in interfaith work and considers it to be his mission, like that of the current Pope Francis, to work for peace and conciliation. But interfaith work can often be marred by an underlying refusal to come clean about beliefs that contradict those of others.
With Islam, I have to ask how it is possible to dialogue with a faith that denies the divinity of Christ, denies that he was crucified or resurrected, denies the Trinity, denies Mary as the mother of God, denies the belief in original sin and salvation through Christ, regards the Bible as corrupt, believes that all Christians are the inferiors of Muslims and are destined to hell fire? What is there to talk about if both sides are to be honest about their beliefs?
Even if a majority of Muslims may be concerned about extremism in their midst, there are reasons to think that David Cameron’s view is close to the mark: that some Muslims unwittingly or wittingly condone what goes on because much of it is in keeping with the Qur’an, the hadith[traditions], the Shari’a law books, and Islamic practice from the time of Muhammad.
Here is what I wrote. I await his reply.
An open letter to
His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster
I have listened with interest to your interview last Friday on LBC Radio, when you were asked to comment on David Cameron’s speech at the 2015 Globsec conference in Bratislava, specifically his remarks concerning British Muslims and the role he wants them to take in defeating the radicalization of Muslim youth. You took issue with him, and gave reasons for a different approach to the problem.
May I comment on the things you said in turn? I write as someone with a lifetime’s experience with Islam and Islamic Studies. My second degree was a four-year MA from Edinburgh University in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History, when I studied the life of Muhammad and the Qur’an (in Arabic) with the late William Montgomery Watt, the world’s leading authority on both subjects at that time. I also have a PhD from Cambridge in Persian Studies, researching aspects of Iranian Shi’ism. I have taught Arabic-English translation and Islamic civilization in Morocco and Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. I have written many books, academic articles, entries for scholarly encyclopaedias (including the second edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam).
More pertinent to what I want to say here is my authorship of think tank reports on hate literature found in British mosques, on Shari’a law in the UK, and two reports on Muslim schools in this country, when I was the first person to identify the problems revealed by the Trojan Horse scandal.
I say all this, not to brag, but to show that I come to this subject as an informed and experienced commentator. I am, as much as yourself, an active opponent of genuine Islamophobia, but not of honest criticism of Islam, whether from religious or secular points of view. I have often collaborated with and written about Muslim reformers here and abroad, and I regard them as the chief hope of the Muslim community in the years to come. And I frequently criticize the treatment of such fresh thinkers by Islamist governments, whether in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, or elsewhere.
I also take a deep interest in the fate of the Baha’i community of Iran, a religious group I have studied and written about for many years. I fear that the Shi’a meeting you attended recently would have asked you to leave had you spoken up in defence of the Baha’is and asked for an end to their persecution. You say you spoke about dialogue and how people live together. Shi’a Muslims almost to a man curse the Baha’is in their prayers and support the Iranian government’s treatment of them. They are, may I say it, often vociferous in their hatred for Jews as well.
Like yourself, I have great hopes for Muslims, above all in their integration within this country and their adjustment to the British way of life while retaining those aspects of their faith that blend best with our own values — notably their spirituality, prayerfulness, and their pursuit of the various cultural achievements they bring here, from Qawwali music to one of the highest art forms of all civilization: Arabic and Persian calligraphy.
But I fear I am not as sanguine as you are about the possibilities of finding genuine opposition to radicalism. Some form of intolerance, and acceptance of violence, seems to pervade so many Muslim communities around the globe. You say, “there are many voices, Muslim voices in this country that condemn ISIS and condemn it absolutely.” That is undoubtedly true, but Muslim voices openly condemning radicalism remain muted, especially within the more closely knit communities, not least those where hate preachers still lecture in the mosques and intolerant literature is still to be found. As you yourself say, “we don’t hear those [voices] in the public media very often.” You add that “many of the Muslim leaders are deeply, deeply concerned about this.” But rather more Muslim leaders, especially those from Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood and similar circles do not seem at all concerned.
There is a simple reason. All Muslims, if they are at all pious, believe that the Qur’an is the unassailable Word of God, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. They also believe that it is a complete and perfect transcript of a book that has existed with God for all eternity. Sunni Muslims (and Shi’is using a different corpus) believe that the ahadith — the passages of hadith literature recording the sayings and actions of Muhammad — are beyond criticism, since centuries of scholarship have winnowed out anything unauthentic. And all Muslims, however diverse their origins, believe that the Sira, the historical biography of the Prophet, reveals words and actions that serve as models for the behaviour of all believers.
Salafi Muslims, who are the most radical, are far from a modern suddenness. They believe that Muslims must act in accordance with the path laid down by the Prophet and his companions (the salaf), the first three generations who lived in Muhammad’s lifetime.
Where does this lead? No Muslim may criticize or seek to re-interpret the Qur’an (some who have tried have been killed), the six canonical hadith volumes, or the behaviour of the Prophet and his companions. When members of ISIS murder apostates, therefore, it is hard to condemn the ISIS members, as that is what the Prophet did. When they take slave girls as war booty, that is what the Prophet did. When they impose the jizya or poll tax on Christians, or execute any who refuse to pay it, that is what the Prophet and his companions did. Waging jihad is an injunction in many chapters of the Qur’an. Taking concubines as part of war booty is ordered explicitly in the Qur’an. Killing non-Muslims who take up arms against the Muslims is repeatedly urged in the Qur’an. Killing apostates is enjoined by a Tradition in the most authentic book of hadith, the Sahih al-Bukhari. Beheading those deemed to have acted against the Muslims is an act approved of by Muhammad, famously when he allowed the beheading of some 700 male members of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.
Of course, many Muslims in this country are horrified by the things ISIS fighters do, above all by the non-Qur’anic punishments they carry out, such as killing Christians and others without offering them a chance for conversion, killing Muslims who have opposed them without giving them an opportunity to repent, or burning a prisoner alive. But where extremists act in accordance with Islamic law or scriptural commandments, criticism is far harder to express. I have heard only the tiniest number of British Muslims condemn Hamas, its terror tactics or its covenant to kill all Jews in the world.
After the terror recent attacks in Tunisia, Paris and Kuwait, David Cameron said that these had nothing to do with Islam and that “Islam is a religion of peace.” This is a frequent assertion by politicians. It has also been echoed by Pope Francis in his apostolic exhortation “The Joy of the Gospel,” in which he writes: “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”
Much as I respect Pope Francis and find him a man of goodwill and understanding, I fear I find him much mistaken in this. It is a simple fact of Qur’an commentary, since the earliest period until today, that early, Meccan verses, which express a tolerant and peace-loving attitude, although applicable within the Muslim community, have been abrogated by later, Medinan, verses, which call for jihad, the beheading of non-Muslims, outright hatred for Jews and Christians, generalized hatred for all non-Muslims (who are destined for hellfire), and the need to use violence to impose Islamic rule across the world.
I do not know what copy of the Qur’an Pope Francis has been shown, but it is clearly very different to any copy in my possession, whether the original Arabic or a translation. When hate preachers in British mosques convey a violent or intolerant message to their congregants, they do so by quoting the Qur’an as the Word of God, thereby sanctioning acts of jihad. And the history of “authentic Islam” has been a constant story of acts of violence punctuated by periods of peacefulness within the Islamic realm. Muhammad led jihad armies and sent others out — that history is regarded by all Muslims as “authentic.” The first four caliphs (authentic to all Sunni Muslims) directed major campaigns of conquest that finally brought Muslim armies to India in the East, and the Iberian peninsula, the south of France, southern Italy and to the gates of Vienna.
The Ottoman Empire, between 1346 and 1918, conquered and enslaved much of Eastern Europe. Even several of the mystical Sufi orders, thought by many to be non-violent, fought jihad wars in North Africa, the Caucasus and elsewhere. From the 18th to the 20th century, jihad wars were waged against heretical Muslims and Westerners in India, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Libya, British Mandate Palestine, against Israel, and in Arabia (twice). Today’s wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere are a powerful testimony to the attractions of fundamentalist Islam.
There are many kinds of jihad, but violent jihad — war in the cause of Islam — has been constant throughout Islamic history. To that extent, Islam and violence are far more closely associated with each other scripturally and historically than in any other religion. To ignore this is to hamper us in our efforts to bring Muslims into peaceful relations with the West, with all non-Muslims and especially with one another.
It also does not help if we ignore another basic Islamic doctrine, something called Al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ — meaning something like “loyalty and enmity,” as it has been translated in several English-language Muslim publications issued in the UK. While the real meaning is more complex, what it amounts to is an assertion that Muslims must have as little as possible to do with non-Muslims. Muslims should not celebrate Christmas, birthdays, anniversaries or anything else with their non-Muslim workmates or neighbours. They must not take part in interfaith gatherings where they may be called on to compromise their faith. They must expose the falsehoods of Christianity and Judaism (based on passages in the Qur’an that treat both the Old and New Testaments as hopelessly corrupt); deny the sonship and godhood of Jesus; reject the crucifixion; condemn monks and priests, and so on. This doctrine has been widely preached and published in this country. It represents a significant challenge to your own interfaith work. Even the most moderate and companionable Muslims find it impossible to deny these things, because to do so would mean denying the veracity of the Word of God.
Those who ignore such passages in the Qur’an are to be commended for making an effort to engage with non-believers, but as often as not, doing so becomes a challenge to their faith or brings them closer to secularism.
Many convert to Christianity, but in doing so they expose themselves to threats or acts of violence from their families and other local Muslims. Many converts have paid the ultimate price.
There is strong statistical evidence to show that more than a negligible number of Muslims in the West subscribe to what we consider radical views. In survey after survey, polls taken by well-regarded agencies such as Pew, NOP World (a UK company now within the German Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung [GfK], one of the top five marketing research organizations in the world), the British public opinion researcher ICM Research, the Center for Security Policy, Policy Exchange, and Civitas show high figures for support for violence, honour killings, stoning adulterers, executing apostates and much else. There is far too much material to discuss in any detail here, but a thorough compilation of such findings is available. The figures are worrying in the UK, but grow even more alarming when surveys are conducted in Muslim countries.
In 2007, the conservative British Think Tank, Policy Exchange, published a groundbreaking survey of Muslim attitudes in the UK, “Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism.” What was striking in it was that, instead of successive generations of Muslims becoming better integrated into British society, the younger they are the more radical they become. Overall, 53% of Muslims prefer Muslim women to wear a veil. Only 16% of 45-54-year-olds prefer shari’a to UK law, but this rises to 37% of 16-24-year-olds. Conversely, 75% of those aged 45-54 prefer UK law, but this drops to 50% of 16-24s. 56% of this youngest generation insist that a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim; 56% insist that a woman may not marry without the consent of her male guardian (father, brother, uncle); 52% say a man may have up to four wives, a woman only one husband; 36% believe apostasy is punishable by death; 71% insist that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal. Whereas 56% of 45-54 year-olds want some reform of shari’a law, this drops to 37% of 16-24 year-olds. While a mere 2% of 45-54s support al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, this rises to 13% among the youngest.
These numbers go some way to confirming Sarfraz Manzoor’s conclusion that apparently the majority of Muslims do not feel particularly progressive, especially in areas such as permitting homosexuality, mixing with members of the opposite sex, in reining in the application shari’a law.
The Policy Exchange survey must be read in its entirety. It is long, detailed, and sophisticated in its nuance. Overall, a majority of Muslims seem to be well integrated and do express loyalty to Great Britain. We should not go too far in claiming there are no progressives or that they are not in large numbers. But it remains worrying that the younger generations are clearly much less well-integrated than their fathers and grandparents.
Most immigrant communities go in the other direction. According to a 2011 report on integration by the US Migration Policy Institute, “Full integration into U.S. society and economy generally takes more than one generation, with children of immigrants reliably outperforming their parents in educational attainment, occupational status, wealth, and home ownership. Residential segregation also decreases between first and second generations, and rates of intermarriage between ethnic and racial groups increase. Language proficiency improves dramatically as well.” Clearly, this does not seem to apply as strongly among British Muslims, and a similar pattern can be seen across Europe.
Other surveys are even more disturbing. An ICM Unlimited poll in 2006 found that a full 40% of British Muslims wanted shari’a law and that as many as 20% approved of London’s 7/7 bombings. The 7/7 bombers seemed to be well-integrated young men, with jobs and educational qualifications. An NOP World Ltd. survey at the same time put the figure of support higher, at 25%. In 2005, the Federation of Islamic Students in the UK indicated that one in five Muslim students would not report other Muslims known to be planning terror attacks.
CSP Poll this year reported that 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. A 2010 survey of 600 Muslim students at 30 universities throughout Britain found that 32% of Muslim respondents believed that killing in the name of religion is justified; and that 40% wanted shari’a law. A 2006 NOP Research survey showed that as many as 78% of British Muslims supported punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. The same survey found that fully 29% of British Muslims would “aggressively defend” Islam. It also showed that 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. When compared with the views of Christians and Jews, this is a very high figure indeed. One in ten British Muslims supports honour killings.
This is only support for violence. There are other areas for concern. Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust happened. 51% believe a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. 62% of Muslims here do not support free speech. Only 7% of Muslims in the UK consider themselves as British first: with the passage of so many generations now, this is a disturbing indication of non-integration. 54% believe a Muslim man may marry up to four wives. 61% want homosexuality punished. According to Pew (2011) 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community. 43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims. That, of course, includes the Catholic Church. In 2013, 1 in 3 Muslims in Austria said it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim, and 22% oppose democracy.
I have, I fear, gone on too long citing statistics. But figures such these are indicative of a wider level of acceptance of extreme ideas than your comments and those of many politicians suggest. I do not envy you in your work to find reconciliation, and I do commend your efforts in seeking solutions to this problem, now a problem of overwhelming proportions across the world. Nothing here is remotely Islamophobic, insofar as it is based wholly on a direct reading of Islamic scripture and texts, of Islamic history, and of statistics for modern developments and attitudes. I do, therefore, ask you to take some measure of my comments simply on their own merits. My arguments are not subtle, and of course there are many other perspectives on all the matters covered here. As a professional, however, who has spent a lifetime studying many facets of Islam, perhaps my views deserve to be taken into account alongside the important work you do to secure closer relations with those sections of Britain’s Muslim community, who show themselves willing and even eager to forge close ties with their fellow citizens, regardless of faith or its absence.
Apologies for subjecting you to such a lengthy exposition, but I simply hope that you will see that David Cameron did not speak out of turn when he expressed concern at Bratislava.
With best wishes,
Dr. Denis MacEoin
Denis MacEoin was born in Belfast, where he learned at first hand the dangers of religious strife
Violent Islamic lust for British and Scandinavian girls goes right back to Muhammad.
The Muslim penchant to target “white” women for sexual exploitation—an epidemic currently plaguing Europe, especially Britain and Scandinavia—is as old as Islam itself, and even traces back to Muhammad.
Much literary evidence attests to this in the context of Islam’s early predations on Byzantium (for centuries, Christendom’s easternmost bulwark against the jihad). According to Ahmad M. H. Shboul (author of “Byzantium and the Arabs: The Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature”) Christian Byzantium was the “classic example of the house of war,” or Dar al-Harb—that is, the quintessential realm that needs to be conquered by jihad. Moreover, Byzantium was seen “as a symbol of military and political power and as a society of great abundance.”
The similarities between pre-modern Islamic views of Byzantium and modern Islamic views of the West—powerful, affluent, desirable, and the greatest of all infidels—should be evident. But they do not end here. To the medieval Muslim mind, Byzantium was further representative of “white people”—fair haired/eyed Christians, or, as they were known in Arabic, Banu al-Asfar, “children of yellow” (reference to blonde hair).
The Byzantines as a people were considered as fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origin were highly valued…. The Arab’s appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed. For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet). Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted [to Islam] Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” Not only were Byzantine slave girls sought after for caliphal and other palaces (where some became mothers of future caliphs), but they also became the epitome of physical beauty, home economy, and refined accomplishments. The typical Byzantine maiden who captures the imagination oflitterateurs and poets, had blond hair, blue or green eyes, a pure and healthy visage, lovely breasts, a delicate waist, and a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light.
While the essence of the above excerpt is true, the reader should not be duped by its overly “romantic” tone. Written for a Western academic publication by an academic of Muslim background, the essay is naturally euphemistic to the point of implying that being a sex slave was desirable—as if her Arab owners were enamored devotees who merely doted over and admired her beauty from afar.
Indeed, Muhammad asked a new convert “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” as a way to entice him to join the jihad and reap its rewards—which, in this case, included the possibility of enslaving and raping blonde Byzantine women—not as some idealistic discussion on beauty.
This enticement seems to have backfired with another Muslim who refused Muhammad’s call to invade Byzantine territory (the Tabuk campaign). “O Abu Wahb,” cajoled Muhammad, “would you not like to have scores of Byzantine women and men as concubines and servants?” Wahb responded: “O Messenger of Allah, my people know that I am very fond of women and, if I see the women of the Byzantines, I fear I will not be able to hold back. So do not tempt me by them, and allow me not to join and, instead, I will assist you with my wealth.” The prophet agreed but was apparently unimpressed—after all, Wahb could have all the Byzantine women he desired if the jihad succeeded—and a new Sura for the Koran (9:49) was promptly delivered condemning the man to hell for his reported hypocrisy and failure to join the jihad.
Thus a more critical reading of Shboul’s aforementioned excerpt finds that European slave girls were not “highly valued” or “appreciated” as if they were precious statues—they were held out as sexual trophies to entice Muslims to the jihad.
Moreover, the idea that some sex slaves became mothers to future caliphs is meaningless since in Islam’s patriarchal culture, mothers—Muslim or non-Muslim—were irrelevant in lineage and had no political status. And talk of “litterateurs and poets” and “a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light” is further anachronistic and does a great disservice to reality: These women were—as they still are—sex slaves, treated no differently than the many slaves of the Islamic State today.
For example, during a recent sex slave auction held by the Islamic State, blue and green eyed Yazidi girls were much coveted and fetched the highest price. Even so, these concubines are being cruelly tortured. In one instance, a Muslim savagely beat his Yazidi slave’s one year old child until she agreed to meet all his sexual demands.
Another relevant parallel between medieval and modern Islamic views exists: white women were and continue to be seen as sexually promiscuous by nature—essentially “provoking” Muslim men into lusting after them.
Much of this is discussed in Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs by Nadia Maria El Cheikh. She writes:
Fitna, [an Islamic term] meaning disorder and chaos, refers also to the beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control. Fitna is a key concept in defining the dangers that women, more particularly their bodies, were capable of provoking in the mental universe of the Arab Muslims.
After explaining how the fair haired/eyed Byzantine woman exemplified Islam’s femme fatale of fitna, Cheikh writes:
In our [Muslim] texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality…
Our sources show not Byzantine women but [Muslim] writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity….
Cheikh documents how Muslims claimed that Byzantine (or “white Christian”) females were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; that, “because they find sex more enjoyable, they are prone to adultery”; that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”
While the one quality that our [Muslim] sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative….
Such anecdotes [of sexual promiscuity] are clearly far from Byzantine reality and must be recognized for what they are: attempts to denigrate and defame a rival culture through their exaggeration of the laxity with which Byzantine culture dealt with its women….
In fact, in Byzantium, women were expected to be retiring, shy, modest, and devoted to their families and religious observances…. [T]he behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.”
Based on all the above, some historic facts emerge: Byzantium was long viewed by early Muslims as the most powerful, advanced, and wealthy “infidel” empire, one highly desired—not unlike modern Islamic views of the West today. And Byzantine women, or “white women,” were long viewed as the “femme fatale” of Islam—from a carnal perspective, the most desired, from a pious perspective, the most despised of women.
Turning to today, we find all these same patterns at work—including the idea that “white women” are naturally promiscuous and provoke pious Muslim men into raping them. Thus last December in the UK, while a Muslim man raped a British woman, he told her that “you white women are good at it”—thereby echoing that ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of white women.
The UK is also home to one of the most notorious Muslim-led sex ring scandals: in Rotherham and elsewhere, thousands of young native British girls have been systematically groomed, trafficked, beaten and sexually abused by Muslims—even as the “multiculturalist” authorities and police stood by and watched. (For more on the UK scandal and Islamic law on sex slavery click here).
In fact, all throughout Europe—particularly in the Nordic nations—thousands of “Byzantine-type” women have been violently raped and egregiously beaten by Muslims. In Norway, Denmark, and Sweden—where fair hair and eyes predominate—rape has astronomically risen since those nations embraced the doctrine of multiculturalism and opened their doors to tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants.
According to Gatestone Institute, “Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%.” The overwhelming majority of rapists are Muslim immigrants. The epidemic is so bad that some blonde haired Scandinavian women are dying their hair black in the hopes of warding off potential Muslim predators.
Nor is this phenomenon a product of chance; some modern day Muslims actually advocate for it. Back in 2011, a female politician and activist trying to combat sexual immorality in Kuwait suggested that Muslims import white sex slaves. After explaining how she once asked Islamic clerics living in the city of Mecca concerning the legality of sex slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate, she explained:
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. [See here, here, and here for more on Islamic law and sex slavery.]
As for what sort of “infidel” women are ideal, the Kuwaiti activist suggested Russian women (most of whom are fair haired and eyed; ironically, Russia is often seen as Byzantium’s successor):
In the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.
In short, the ongoing epidemic in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere—whereby Muslim men sexually target white women—is as old as Islam, has precedents with the prophet and his companions, and, till this day, is being recommended as a legitimate practice by some in the Muslim world.
Shboul’s essay is found in Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times (ed. Michael Bonner, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), 240, 248.
This apologetic approach is also found in modern academic works discussing the janissaries—European Christian boys who were seized by the Ottoman Empire, converted to and indoctrinated in Islam, trained to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed on their former Christian families. Although young, terrified boys were seized from the clutches of their devastated parents, modern academics claim that Christian families actually hoped their boys would be taken and trained as janissaries, as this would ensure that they have a “bright future” in the Ottoman hierarchy.
Arabic tafsir here: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=49&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 A shorter version of the narrative also appears in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (trans. A. Guillaume, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), 602-603.
Nadia Maria el Cheikh, Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 123-129.
“Real leaders are not called to lead up consensus they are to mold consensus, and without a doubt, this will create enemies.”
When you see a leader taking a stand and, as a result, his life is threatened, gets dumped by his sponsors, condemned by the establishment “politicians” and taken out of context by the state-controlled media, you have to understand that he is not one that is going along to get along, but rather is a genuine leader. This, in many cases, is the identifying characteristic when it comes to what a leader looks and acts like. And real leaders are what is needed in America (Rev. 5:5).
What is a leader? Often, when making a new contact, I will first vet them before allying myself (Amos 3:3). After all, there is a huge difference between a public person and a leader.
For example, I had a very well-known preacher come to stay out at my place, but before having him come out I went and vetted him to see what his enemies were saying of him (John 15:17-18). Lo and behold, I discovered he had many unlawful and un-American enemies attacking his ministry. He was leading, not asking permission to do so. At every turn, he seemed to be in trouble for standing up for righteousness and the laws of our republic (Matthew 5:10; Luke 6:22-26).
“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
In contrast, how many of today’s self-positioned leaders, regardless if they are preachers, patriots or conservatives, are as worthless as the ones whom they complain about? After all, they have a reputation to keep up (Philippians 2:7-9). They go along to get along. They don’t offend anyone because they do not stand for anything; and if they were to have enemies, someone might think ill of them for actually taking a stand for what is right. Of course, they cannot have that (Gal. 6:12).
In the conservative movement (today’s conservatives are yesterday’s liberals), for example, you have a bunch of men who are no more than paper tigers. They play the politically correct game as long as it is safe enough for them to hide behind their computers and get away with whatever it is that they write. Because they live under a false pretense, they are too spineless to actually fight for what they say that they love (2 Timothy 4:7; Jude 1:3).
As a matter of fact, when it comes to the fight, which is the furthest thing from their minds, they say, “Let someone else do the fighting,” demonstrating their lack of integrity. They love their country so much that their degree of sacrifice is going to another fruitless conference to be seen and talk. Of course, it goes no further than talk (Matthew 15:8).
They hide behind a title, watching the game of life and telling everyone how they are to live their lives, but not applying it to themselves (Jeremiah 9:3; Malachi 2:2). Hypocrites!
What of the women? I am not here talking about the women that are laying it down, doing what the men ought to be doing. I high five these brave and classy women such as Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, Katherine Albrecht and others.
I am talking of the conservative women, which you can find everywhere but where they ought to be, and with someone else except who they ought to be with. These conservative women act like little 15-year-old cheerleaders who did not get their fill of attention in high school. Now they have brought it into adulthood. To them, the fight for liberty is some sort of fashion show fantasy. The sad fact is that everyone sees them for what they are; and that is “little, immature, snotty girls” who never grew up mentally, but are trapped in the body of 50 or 60-year-old woman.
These women love the limelight so much that everything is sacrificed, including their families. This is all for the opportunity to be seen by men (Matthew 23:5). They love their titles too, and don’t forget to add them to their names when they are out in public. Apparently these women do not have the right people around them that actually love them enough to tell them to grow up and raise their families (Titus 2:4-5).
Do a search on these worldlings and you will find nothing that proves the contrary to what I am saying.
Herein lies the problem with the America we know. These profess to be one thing. Yet, in reality, they are the opposite. They are no different than what they complain about (1 Kings 18:21). In short, these people are the problem (Philippians 3:18). They contend that they want peace in a world that is at war with what they profess to believe in, but they do not go to war to have it set right (John 16:33).
These self-positioned leaders fail to understand that men follow courage and not titles (Mark 8:27). They believe that it is their position to be served rather than being the ones who are to serve (Luke 22:27).
They buy and sell the women, using them as slaves. They kidnap children, even infants, and detonate them as bombs. As the Islamic State tightens its grip on Syria and Iraq, the horror of its atrocities reaches unimaginable depths. And what remains of Christianity in the Middle East is dying, massacred through the torture, displacement, and murder of an entire population.
Now, former Congressman Frank Wolf, R-Va., is calling on the U.S. government and the United Nations to declare the rampage a genocide. “Genocidal intent can clearly be seen in Islamic State’s ideology and mission which is directed toward the creation of a global caliphate that has been purged of every man, woman, and child deemed to be an ‘unbeliever’ through either forced conversion or death,” Wolf, now a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, a Christian human rights group, wrote last week in a letter to President Obama. “In Iraq, this has manifested most clearly in the insurgency’s actions against Christians and Yezidis. They have been killed, tortured, kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery, and forcibly removed from their territorial homeland.”
Indeed, the stories coming out of Syria and Iraq about the plight of religious minorities there are more than soul-searing: they nearly defy credibility in their hideousness. A cover story in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, for instance, describes the abduction of a 3-year-old girl from her mother, and the separation of captives into “healthy” and “infirm” groups, a gesture chillingly reminiscent of the Holocaust. Often, there is a third group, comprised of women, soon to be sold as sex slaves.
Other reports are equally gruesome. The children born to these captured women, Wolf wrote, who are repeatedly raped by ISIS soldiers, and raised “to conform to the insurgency’s interpretation of ‘pure’ Islam.”
“ISIS has kidnapped and forcibly transferred the children of Christians and Yezidis, including children as young as seven months,” Wolf added. “Reports indicate that these children are being intimidated and brainwashed in order to create the next generation of radical insurgents.” For this reason, “it is imperative that the issue be brought immediately before the Security Council and that a declaration of genocide be made.”
Wolf’s entreaty stands on solid research, including a report based on interviews 21st-century Wilberforce conducted with 75 people in the region. The report quotes one Christian leader: “This is not just the end of Christianity, but the end of our ethnicity who have lived here for thousands of years.” And a priest now living in Beirut told theTimes, “We’re afraid our whole society will vanish.”
The Yezidi community – or what remains of it – is of particular concern, having been nearly decimated in 2014. Tens of thousands of Yezidis were driven from their homes by ISIS militants, and forced onto Mt. Sinjar, where hundreds of men were killed and women were brutally and systematically raped. According to the Wilberforce report, “Approximately 700 girls were held, including a 7-month-old who had been kidnapped from her family to be raised by IS. The girls were separated according to eye color, and members of IS were allowed to choose the young women according to personal preference.”
The persecution of Christian and other minority groups by the Islamic State has, in fact, been described as “genocide” by any number of civil rights groups already, and the UN stated in a March report that IS “may have committed” genocide. President Obama also referred to genocide in draft legislation requesting the use of force against ISIS this past February.
But both the Obama administration and the U.N. have fallen short of issuing a formal accusation of genocide under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide. Such a declaration could potentially permit the use of military force (if approved by the UN Security Council), said Antonia Chayes, a professor of international politics and law at the Fletcher School.
“Current support for U.S. bombing in Syria is based on collective self-defense invoked by Iraq,” Chayes told me. “But the additional declaration of genocide could possibly add weight to arguments for military force placed before the UN Security Council.”
For now, Wolf has proposed a six-point plan, which would include creating an oasis for religious minorities in the Nineveh Plain; support of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s “efforts to build a context of civil discourse, freedom of religion, human wrights protection and the inclusion of all minorities; education assistance for displaced Christians and Yezidis; and investigations and the prosecution of the Islamic state for crimes against humanity and genocide.”
These are heroic goals, and certainly worth striving for. And Wolf is right that the United States can and must take a leading role.