Islam, Slavery and Rape pt. 2

FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?

Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.

But all of this was small change compared to his involvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.

Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did everything that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.

He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.

FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?

Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.

When Mohammed destroyed the Banu Qurayza tribe, all of the adult male Jews were beheaded, so that no husbands were left. Mohammed then took the children and gave them to Muslims to raise as Muslims and he sold off the Jewish women as slaves.

We know from another story that the women were divided into sex slaves and domestic slaves. In one scene, a jihadist is trying to obtain a high ransom for a woman and he is told that her breasts are flat and her mouth is cold, so her value was less. In short, she was only good for work around the house, not in the bedroom.

The Hadith tells of another story where the Muslims used coitus interruptus to avoid impregnating the kafir sex slaves. The reason was purely for business. If the kafir sex slave was pregnant, then she was worth less money.

Islamic doctrine says that kafir women should not be used for prostitutes, only for the pleasure of the master.

When Mohammed attacked the Jews at Khaybar [the invoking of this battle is still used as a curse thrown at the Jews, though few Jews know what it means], many moral precedents were set. Sexual slavery received an entire set of rules. Muslims were not to rape pregnant or menstruating women until they had delivered the child or finished their periods. At Khaybar, Mohammed’s god Allah announced that even married women were fair game for rape.

Mohammed only killed some of the Jews at Khaybar. The male and female survivors were needed to work the land as dhimmis. [The land that they had owned] (The original dhimmis were semi-slaves with no civil rights. Today, dhimmis are ignorant kafirs who apologize for Islam.) Since Islam needed the men to work, husbands were left alive. That was the reason that the Koran said that in this case, even with the husbands looking on, it was good to rape the women.

Sexual slavery was not only fun and profitable for the Muslim men, but rape was a powerful tactic of war, then and today. The women are forced into submission to Muslim men and the husbands are humiliated. Humiliated men are weakened men, so more kafirs were less able to resist Islam.

For some time Mohammed’s favorite sex partner was a Christian slave from Egypt named Mary. One of Mohammed’s wives caught him in some state of intimacy with Mary in the wife’s bedroom and raised hell. Mohammed promised to not do it again and moved Mary to her own apartment in Medina.

Mohammed had received Mary and her sister as gifts. He gave her sister away to a Muslim poet. He was used to giving away sex slaves. He gave several of his top lieutenants kafir sex slaves. Umar, who later became caliph, gave his sex slave to his son. [As an aside, when he was caliph, his son got drunk and Umar beat him to death.]

Islam, Slavery and Rape pt. 3

FP: This institution of Islamic sexual slavery isn’t just a reality of the past is it?

Warner: Everything that has been said up to now is not only history; it is Sunna (the example of the perfect pattern of action and morality found in Mohammed). So today we don’t have a beautiful blonde Christian girl on the block in Mecca, but we have continuous and ongoing rapes by Muslims in kafir cities. This goes on everywhere that Islam goes because it is Sunna.

This is a continuous 1400-year history of jihad. In every detailed history that comes from the original documents from history, rape is a constant. You have to look in the original documents, since our historians refuse to report it in so-called history books.

Rape is Sunna. Rape is not a sin. Rape is permitted and encouraged by Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is jihad. How good can it get? A Muslim gets to rape a kafir girl and get heaven credits. All jihad is a ticket to Paradise.

The most disgusting aspect of the Islamic rape of kafirs is not the rapes, but the kafir response. Kafirs become dhimmis by ignoring the rapes. I challenge you to find one, even one, mention of Islamic rape in the history books.

Islamic rape is more taboo than the N-word in the media. At least the N-word is acknowledged to exist. Even unicorns exist in media fantasy. But Islamic rape is forbidden to even exist as a fantasy.

And to reach a fevered rant: our so-called “feminist” scholars are absolutely intellectually and morally bankrupt hypocrites. They are traitors to our culture and a shame and a disgrace. They remain silent in the face of heinous crimes against women. They are arch-dhimmis when they refuse to speak of the Sunna, history and current rapes of our daughters, mothers, and sisters.

And our tax dollars support their evil in our public universities.

FP: Mohammed was a white man and had black slaves, correct? Isn’t there a racism here? Where is all the leftist indignation against Islam on this issue?

Warner: The relationship between blacks and slavery is ironic. A standard approach of Islam to blacks is that Christianity is the religion of the white man and Islam is the natural religion of the black man. They add that Mohammed’s second convert was a black slave, Bilal, who was Mohammed’s companion and the first muezzin (the man who calls to prayer).

The Hadith, however, goes out of its way, many times, to tell the world that Mohammed was a white man. The Hadith also tells us the race of the kafirs that Mohammed enslaved. And Mohammed had many black slaves in his household. One of his slaves was a black man called, Anjasha.

Mohammed owned black slaves. It is that simple. His favorite wife, the child Aisha, had a black slave. But to be fair to Mohammed, he was not a racist about slavery. He enslaved Arabs, Africans, and Greeks. Islam enslaves all kafirs, independent of race.

Mohammed was politically incorrect about blacks and called them “raisin heads” in the Hadith. Thus it would be a compliment to call a black Muslim a “raisin head.” It would be Sunna and not offensive. Mohammed also said that Muslims are to obey the Islamic leader, “even if they were black.” A left-handed compliment, at best.

Mohammed used his robe to shield Aisha, so she could watch black slaves perform a martial arts routine in the mosque. The Hadith tells of a prophecy about a black man bringing evil to Islam. Black men were prophesized to destroy the Kabah.

But when Muslims preach to blacks they only say that Islam’s first muezzin was a black man. They don’t tell the rest of the story.

Islam, Slavery and Rape pt. 5

FP: The violent capture and enslavement of black Africans by Muslim Arabs continues to this today. The root of this modern-day slavery is, of course, Islamic doctrine.

Warner: The enslavement of Africans is happening today. The only reason that Islam stopped enslaving whites and Hindus is that Islam is too weak to resist the social pressure. The Sunna of slavery has not changed, just the ability to use their law.

In the African countryside Muslims are still using jihad to enrich themselves. I have spoken with a Sudanese slave who escaped. The Muslims killed his parents and took him and his sister. Each night the jihadists gang raped his sister. Remember, rape is Sunna.

When he met his new masters, they put him in the middle of a circle of the family and each beat him with a stick. He was told that his new name was Abd, black slave. He slept in the barn with the animals.

Our media and intellectuals are quick to punish the slightest insult by a white against a black man, but they have not the slightest recognition of murder, rape and enslavement of blacks by Islam. Our media and intellectuals are dhimmis.

FP: Final thoughts and comments?

Warner: Slavery is the fruit of Islamic duality. Mohammed, the master of dualism and submission, used slavery as a tool of jihad because it worked. Mohammed’s life was infused with slavery. Slaves were the lifeblood of Islam. Mohammed, the white man, owned both male and female black slaves. His attitude was pure dualism.

The most disgusting thing about Islamic slavery is not that Muslims enslave others, but that we ignore it. The Muslims have been fed the Koran and the Sunna in their mother’s milk. They are doing what is ethical according to Islam. In a strange way, Muslims are to be pitied. A Muslim is the first victim of Islam.

The criticism of whites because of their being involved in slavery is standard fair in the media and the universities. Try to find a university that even teaches about the killing of 120,000,000 Africans for Muslims to profit from the 24,000,000 slaves.

Blacks define themselves on the basis of slavery. They will not go beyond the white, Christian version of slavery. There is only one theory of history in the black community—the West African Limited Edition version of history. Blacks will not admit the broad scope of slave history. Hindu slavery? It never happened. White and European slavery? It never happened. Slavery on the East coast of Africa? It never happened. A massive slave trade through the Sahara into North Africa? It never happened. Black, eunuchs at the Medina mosque? It never happened. This incomplete history of slavery is what the taxpayers fund in the state universities.

How can black leaders ignore Islam’s sacred violence in Africa? Why aren’t the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are ignorant and in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.

Blacks are dhimmis and serve Islam with their silence. There is a deep fear of Islam that makes them overlook and placate Islam. Arabs are the masters of blacks.

One thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ignorant to know it. Blacks and whites have a secret shame buried under the denial of being slaves inside Islam.

But the rest of the media and intellectuals line up as dhimmis, too. One of the marks of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of kafir intellectuals about Islam is profound.

They don’t know about how jihad killed the 120,000,000 Africans, the 60,000,000 Christians, the 80,000,000 Hindus or the 10,000,000 Buddhists. Our intellectuals do not know about the Tears of Jihad (detailed in all of our books). That is a lot of death and ignorance—270,000,000 dead. Our intellectuals don’t know, don’t care and don’t bother. They deny.

Reagan’s Rules for Military Action Pt.1

By Jeffrey Lord on 9.3.13 @ 6:09 AM in the American Spectator

What Reagan’s foreign policy experience can teach us about Syria.

They are Reagan’s Rules. 

There are four of them, all concerning the use of American military force.

Ronald Reagan had learned them the hard way, and he wanted to make sure he communicated what he learned to his presidential successors. So he wrote them out one-by-one in his memoir, An American Life.

What prompted them? What are Reagan’s Rules? And how do they apply to the current situation in Syria?

We’ll begin with what happened, move on to the four Reagan Rules and then apply them to Syria.

Reagan’s Disaster in Lebanon

October, 1983.                 

What began a year earlier as just one more chapter in the seemingly eternal turmoil of the Middle East had, predictably, mushroomed. In response to the attempted assassination of Israel’s British Ambassador by the Abu Nidal faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had had enough. On June 6, 1982 Begin had launched an Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon. It was an invasion designed to expel the PLO from Lebanon, strip Syria—then run by President Hafez al-Assad (the father of today’s Bashar al-Assad) — of its Russian backed influence in Lebanon. Then, once done, install a pro-Israeli government run by the Christian Bashir Gemayel.

Suffice to say, all hell broke loose. Lebanon quickly became a nest of vipers. There was the PLO, the non-PLO Palestinians, the Right and the Left, the Christians, the Muslims, this and that paramilitary group, the armed forces and the security forces. There were the occupying Israelis and the conniving Syrians, the latter a client state of the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cold War.

The international community, as the media loves to call Everybody Else, was frantic. Lebanon went to the United Nations begging for help — and got it. That help came in the form of what was called the “Multinational Force in Lebanon,” MFN for short. President Reagan had warily agreed to U.S. participation, and by October of 1983 the MFN “peacekeeping” force included Americans (US Marines and Navy Seals), British and Italian soldiers plus French paratroopers.

For a while, it seemed to be working. At least, President Reagan thought so.

On the Friday of October 21, 1983, the Reagans flew to Augusta, Georgia for a weekend of rest — which meant golf for the President. He liked golf but didn’t play regularly and in fact it had been so long since he had played that he expected  his performance to be miserable. As events turned out, his golf game was to be the least of his worries.

At four in the morning, Saturday, Reagan was awakened by his national security adviser, Bud McFarlane. There was a problem — a big one. Slipping on his bathrobe over his pajamas, the President walked into the living room of the Augusta National Golf Club’s “Eisenhower Cottage” — so-named in honor of another president who really was a serious golfer and used the place on his own golfing vacations.

Already there was McFarlane and Secretary of State George Shultz. The problem? The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) was urgently asking for the United States to intervene militarily on the island of Grenada. Grenada had been on the president’s radar for months. In his famous March speech on the Strategic Defense Initiative — “Star Wars” as it was derided by liberals — Reagan had mentioned the growing problem of Grenada then. There had been a Marxist coup in 1979, and along with the Soviet presence in Cuba and Nicaragua, Reagan had spent a considerable amount of time discussing what appeared to be yet another Soviet attempt to establish a military base in the Western Hemisphere, a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. A 10,000 foot runway had been built at the Grenadian airport. Since tiny Grenada didn’t even have an air force, military analysts knew there could only be one purpose: to accommodate Soviet transports bringing in weapons and ammunition. On top of the military buildup, with both Soviet and Cuban aid flowing into the country, there were threats from Grenada’s Communist government to take 800 American medical students studying on the island as hostages. Always believing that predecessor John F. Kennedy’s hesitation at following through in the 1961 Bay of Pigs operation the Eisenhower administration had been organizing against Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba — a mere 90 miles off of Florida — was a mistake, Reagan was determined that if similarly confronted he would not repeat the same mistake. At Reagan’s directions, the Pentagon had been at work planning a military option if one was needed.

Of a sudden, that October night the situation had come to a head. 

Reagan’s Rules for Military Action pt.2

The Communist government of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop was overthrown by an even more radical group of Marxists. Now the new government — having freshly executed Bishop — was refusing a State Department request to send an American diplomat to arrange for the safe departure of 800 American medical students studying on the island. In other words, 800 young Americans were now officially hostages on Grenada.

Reagan was determined. There would be no repeat of the JFK Bay of Pigs disaster, a disaster that launched further crises with the Soviets as it sent a message of weakness. Both the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis had resulted. Reagan would have none of that. He believed the Communist presence on Grenada to be a direct threat to United States national security. He also believed he had the authority as commander-in-chief to protect the lives of those American kids. Now, with the urgent request for help from the OECS, his earlier instruction to have a naval flotilla that had just departed for Lebanon diverted to Grenada just in case had paid off. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said they could be ready to do a rescue mission and take out the Marxist government in 48 hours.

Said the President in two short words: “Do it.”

Under cloak of secrecy — Reagan did not want any leaks—the invasion of Grenada was getting ready to roll. The President went back to bed.

An hour later, he got up to play his scheduled golf game.

Suddenly, on the 16th hole, Secret Service agents abruptly surrounded the President and his golf party, shoving them into White House limousines and raced him back to Eisenhower Cottage.

An armed gunman had smashed his pick-up truck through the entry gate of the golf course and taken control of the pro-shop, where seven White House aides had set up a very different kind of shop. He was threatening to kill them all unless Reagan agreed to meet with him. The Secret Service was apoplectic. They wanted the President out of there on the spot, on Air Force One and back to Washington. Reagan wouldn’t hear of it. Instead he picked up the phone and called the pro-shop. The gunman picked up the phone to hear the familiar voice say: “Hello, this is Ronald Reagan…”

There was silence. Then the gunman hung up and the line went dead. Reagan tried again—four more times. Each time with the same result. The armed man had sent word that he wanted to meet Reagan personally. The Secret Service said absolutely not. They were out searching the golf course and the woods around the golf course to see if there was more than just this one guy. They found no one—but kept after Reagan to go back to Washington, pronto. Knowing that he had only hours ago secretly ordered the invasion of Grenada, not wanting to raise the specter of impending crisis with the media, Reagan refused and stayed put. Eventually the gunman was persuaded to release his hostages unharmed and he was arrested. 

Reagan went on with his schedule, which by now meant dinner with friends. Then, tired from being up half the night, he went to bed.

At 2:30 in the morning, Bud McFarlane was on the phone yet again. This time it wasn’t about Grenada or the gunman.

A suicide bomber had driven into the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut and first reports said there were 100 dead Marines. That did it.

After another pajama and robe clad meeting with McFarlane and George Shultz, by 6:30 a.m. the President was on Air Force One headed back to Washington. The hell with the golf.

The attack in Beirut, he was learning, was more horrific than first thought. The final death toll was 241 Marines, all murdered as they slept. In a pattern that would years later become familiar to Americans in events as disparate as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing, minutes after the first attack came a second. In the case of Beirut that second attack came two minutes after the first, the second attack at a building housing the MFN peacekeeping force’s French paratroopers. Fifty-eight of the French were killed. 

The Grenada invasion was a success. Launched in secrecy, it rescued the 800 American medical students, overturned the Marxist revolutionaries, discovered thousands of Russian and Cuban-supplied weapons, plus literally a million rounds of ammunition hidden in a false floor in the now-empty Cuban Embassy. There was a treasure trove of documents that tied the Grenadian Marxists to Moscow and Castro [And to Ron Dellums (D. Ca.), the congressman representing Oakland Ca. exposing his relationship to the Grenadian Marxists, both factions.], revealing the suspected objective of making Grenada the third Communist outpost in the Caribbean after Cuba and Nicaragua. Grenada was being designed to make of the Caribbean a Communist lake in America’s back yard.

But if Grenada was a success — it is a peaceful democracy to this day — what was going on in Beirut was an utter failure. Most importantly, Reagan knew it.

Reagan’s Rules for Military Action pt.3

The Reagan administration, and the “international community” right along with it, had grossly underestimated the situation in Beirut. Reagan would later write of his mistake a recognition that only really began to sink in with Americans in the aftermath of 9/11:

“…the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy…How do you deal with a people driven by such a religious zeal that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to kill an enemy simply because he doesn’t worship the same God they do? People who believe that if they do that, they’ll go instantly to heaven?”

Some weeks after the bombing of Beirut, Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger gave Reagan a Pentagon report not yet public that placed the blame for the Beirut massacre on “negligence by the marines’ commanding officers in Beirut.” 

Reagan wouldn't hear of it. He told Weinberger that he, the president, would take full responsibility for the disaster. Said he: “I was the one who sent them there.”

If Reagan was the man who sent the Marines to Lebanon, he was also now to be the man who decided he would be the man to remove them. To get out. He knew that this was a bad situation. Doing this would send a signal of weakness to some (and indeed, years later Osama Bin Laden said just that.) But Reagan had no intention of committing Americans to a full-scale war in the Middle East. And the MFN peacekeeping operation with the British, French and Italians had failed abysmally. So….he pulled out the troops. And home they came.

Which prompted Reagan to eventually write out a set of four principles. Four principles, he would write in his memoirs, that were specifically designed “to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents.” 

Here they are:

Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.

Now.

As of this moment, President Obama is confronted — in precisely the same area of the world that bedeviled Reagan — with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. He is even dealing with exactly the problem Reagan had — the Syrians now as then are backed by the Russians. 

One can spend much time and space — and undoubtedly that time and space will be spent — discussing how in the world we have gotten to this point. 

Be that as it may: here we are. So as America and the world await the return of Congress on September 9, let’s employ Reagan’s Rules to today’s situation.

Reagan’s Rules for Military Action pt.4

Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

Is the use of chemical weapons in Syria “vital to our national interest”? 

The question is not, as Secretary of State Kerry says, whether the use of chemical weapons is “immoral.” It is immoral. So too was blowing up a barracks full of 241 sleeping Marine peacekeepers in Beirut.

The hard fact is that there have been, according to most news reports, some 100,000 people killed in this Syrian civil war. Killed by conventional means — guns and bombs. To be shot dead by a gun, to be killed dead because one is in the way of a bomb makes no one less dead than if killed by a chemical weapon. All are horrible. All leave behind gruesome pictures. (As here, with a victim being carried from the site of a car bombing in Damascus, no chemical weapons involved.)

 It is a very tough question to ask, perhaps to some a callous question. But it is a needed question in any event. Why is death by chemical weapon any more “vital to our national interest” than death by gun or bomb?

Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

Every indication from President Obama and his team indicates they have every intention of violating Reagan Rule 2. What is apparently in store is launching cruise missiles to “degrade” Syria’s military capacity. This precisely meets Reagan’s definition of “a halfway or tentative commitment.” There is quite clearly no “clear intent…to win.” Sending these missiles is the equivalent of sending those Marines to Beirut. Absent an intention to win — which is to say — unhorse Bashar al-Assad as Reagan did with those Grenada Marxists — this is going to be seen by the world, by America’s enemies — as a “halfway or tentative commitment.” Thereby making an already bad situation worse.

Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.) 

Reagan finally made up his mind about Grenada in the dead of night, although he had in fact discussed the situation in public a number of times. On his return to Washington that October Monday, Reagan made a point of summoning congressional leaders for consultation — yet made it plain that he not only had the authority as commander-in-chief to rescue those 800 American medical students but that the Communist control of a small island was decidedly an American national security interest.

Liberals of the day, beginning with House Speaker Tip O'Neill  were furious. Steven F. Hayward’s The Age of Reagan documents the typical liberal fury beginning with O'Neill and one liberal politician after another and running on through the editorial page of the New York Times. Then, lo and behold, in addition to the findings of the American troops — Hayward documents the presence of 800 Cubans along with contingents of Russians, North Koreans, Bulgarians, East Germans and even Gaddafi’s Libyans plus enough arms for a ten-thousand man military along with a million rounds of ammunition “found in a false floor of the vacated Cuban embassy” — there came an unexpected something else.

The television cameras were on hand to record the return of the 800 rescued American students to the United States. The first student, thrilled to be safely home, bounded down the steps of the plane, stepped onto the tarmac — and knelt and kissed the ground.

By day’s end, liberals were in full retreat, with Speaker O'Neill saying grudgingly that Reagan was “justified” in his actions. The American people, in poll after poll, overwhelmingly agreed.

But importantly, when Reagan made his decision to pull the Marines out of Lebanon — they agreed as well. Reagan couldn’t justify an American war in Lebanon — and, he knew, the American people wouldn't support it either. So….there wasn’t one.

Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available. 

There is no present plan to send American troops to Syria. But what will happen as a result of any American missile attack on Syria? In fact, no one knows. So the question must be — if the Obama Administration generates a situation that does in fact call for committing combat troops as a “last result” — will they be prepared? And will they have the courage to do it if “no other choice is available”?