A Tactical Alliance of Convenience: Why Islamists and the Radical Left Align Against the West

AI Generated Cupboard Love

Have you wondered about why Islamists [aka jihadists] and communists/socialists appear to align themselves in the West?

The apparent alignment of Islamists and the radical left in the West is a tactical alliance of convenience, directed against shared enemies, and nothing more. It is not ideological harmony, nor any genuine synthesis of worldviews. 

Islamists, those committed to political Islam, the imposition of sharia, or theocratic rule, are permanently incompatible with communists or socialists. One rests on atheistic materialism and class struggle; the other on divine revelation and the supremacy of the ummah. One sees history as dialectical process; the other as the unfolding of God’s will. Can you guess which is which?

Wherever either has secured power, the other has been purged: Iran after 1979, Soviet Afghanistan, the various Arab socialist experiments. The pattern is consistent and instructive. 

In the West the cooperation is narrower and more limited--campus coalitions, street protests, immigration politics, and anti-Israel activism--yet it's real. Both treat liberal democracy, classical liberalism, free speech on matters of religion and sex, market capitalism, and above all Israel and the United States as the primary obstacles. 

After the 1960s the Western left largely abandoned pure class analysis for an identity-based “oppressor-oppressed” framework. Islamists fit neatly into the “oppressed” category via postcolonial theory, while Zionism or Western policy is cast as the oppressor. The result is joint rallies, BDS campaigns, and campus occupations in which progressive slogans and Islamist symbols appear side by side. 

Hard communists remain fringe; the practical partners are the broader progressive, socialist, and intersectional currents that absorbed Marxist categories and repurposed them. The arrangement is strictly tactical. 

Islamists gain platforms, funding channels, legal cover, and demographic leverage inside open societies.

Western leftist factions gain reliable voting blocs, street muscle, and moral leverage against conservatives. European left parties have courted Muslim organizations for municipal power; American campuses after 7 October 2023 displayed the same selective silence on honor violence, apostasy penalties, and gender segregation that would be intolerable from any other group. 

For the moment both sides regard liberalism itself as the greater threat. Historical precedents confirm the pattern without implying any deeper fusion. Soviet support for certain anti-Western Islamist or nationalist movements during the Cold War was pure realpolitik. 

Anti-colonial rhetoric supplied a shared vocabulary that outlived the USSR. Once power shifted, the alliances dissolved into repression. 

But the sleazy partnership is brittle.

Islamist social conservatism on women, sexuality, blasphemy, and Jews collides with progressive priorities the moment enforcement is attempted. Secular leftists who still notice the data on integration, crime patterns, or polling on sharia, homosexuality, and Israel among many Muslim-majority migrant communities peel away. 

Islamists, for their part, regard communism as kufr and have no long-term interest in proletarian internationalism. Where demographic or institutional power tilts toward one side, the other is discarded. Explanations that reduce the phenomenon solely to “Islamophobia,” “racism,” or pure leftist idealism ignore the repeated, observable pattern of selective solidarity and the explicit statements from both Islamist and radical-left organizers about using each other. 

Equally crude are those that treat every Muslim as an Islamist or every progressive as a communist. It just isn't so.

The alignment exists where interests coincide against the liberal center and the right; it is not a marriage of worldviews. History suggests this alliance will not survive the moment one party no longer needs the other. When demographic change or institutional capture shifts the balance of power, the temporary truce will end as it always has—in mutual repudiation and, where possible, suppression. 

The West will then discover, once again, that the enemies of its enemies were never its friends.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Florida dhimmies give Orlando Airport a Sharia Prayer Room: no Jews, Christians etc., allowed

Praying to someone down there

America’s airports are rolling out the red carpet for Sharia, and your tax dollars are footing the bill, as usual. While Islamic nations kill gays and throw Christians and Jews in jail for daring to pray in public, the U.S. is quietly building mosque-like prayer rooms in major airports, complete with all the trimmings of Islamic worship. 

This isn’t tolerance, it’s a one-way street to ideological surrender, and it’s happening right under our noses in a red state no less.

Back in 2016, Orlando International Airport dropped over $250,000 of taxpayer cash to build gender-segregated Islamic prayer rooms in Terminal B. We’re talking wudu stations for ritual washing, shoe racks, luggage holders, and signs pointing to Mecca like it’s a spiritual GPS. Airport brass called it "traveler comfort" for the growing number of Muslim visitors. Comfort, sure, but don’t hold your breath for a Christian chapel or Jewish synagogue with the same level of TLC.

Contrast that with the Islamic world. 

In Saudi Arabia, you can’t even whisper a Bible verse in public without risking a prison cell or a lash. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are so draconian that two Christians got hauled off in 2021 just for reading scripture in a park. And in Iran, if you convert from Islam, and you’re looking at harassment or a one-way ticket to a jail cell. Try praying as a Jew or Christian in Riyadh or Tehran, you’ll be lucky to walk away on both legs and your head where it belongs.

Yet here in the U.S., funded by taxpayers of every faith (and none), we’re building Islamic prayer complexes that scream exclusivity. No reciprocal love for other religions, no shared interfaith spaces, just Sharia-compliant setups that cater to one group while others get nothing. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a sword. Islamic nations enforce their religious supremacy with an iron grip, while we bankroll their norms in the name of "diversity" because we like to think of ourselves as goody-goodies.

Orlando was just the start. Fast forward to 2024, and Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport rolled out its own Sharia-compliant complex, complete with gender-segregated rooms and ritual washing stations. [Woo-hoo for wudu.] Who’s cheering? CAIR-Houston, the same group tied to Hamas in the DOJ’s biggest terrorism-financing trial ever. 

While interfaith chapels have been a staple in U.S. airports for years, these new facilities are Islamic-only in design and purpose. Public funds are building religious infrastructure that’s neither offered to other faiths nor reciprocated by Islamic countries. Critics aren’t wrong to call this what it is: not tolerance, but a slow slide into appeasement. And, as Winston Churchill said about appeasement: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

America’s funding what Islamic nations ban outright, and most folks are just waking up to the double standard. How long before we stop pretending this is about "inclusion" and start asking why we’re bending over backward for a system that offers zero in return?

Hey amazing readers! If you enjoy my content, please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 

Tweet

Iraq follows Muhammad's lead and lowers marriage age to 9-year-old

The prophet of Islam Muhammad, married Aisha bint Abi Bakr ( c. 613/614 – July 678) when she was six-years-old and still playing with dolls. The marriage was consummate later after the child's father's begged Mo to wait until she was older. So the pedophile waited until she was nine and then sexually abused her because that's what it's called.

What a guy.

When the United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, the aim was to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein and modernize the Islamic country by freeing them of their Islamic bonds. There would now be open elections and the people would have say in their government.

When we officially withdrew our combat troops on December 18, 2011, everything went back to "Iraq normal." So if you should enter Iraq, make sure you set your watches back 1400 years because they're back at it.

The Iraqi Parliament is currently preparing to take a page out of Islamic scripture and go back to the good old days by amending their Personal Status Law. This basically eliminates all women's rights and lowers the minimum marriage age for girls to nine and boys to fifteen. 

This is just the start.

The Iraqi Parliament debated amendments to the Personal Status Law on Sunday that would effectively dissolve the country’s universal standards to protect women and girls on matters such as consent to marriage, alimony, and custody of children by allowing men to opt out, choosing traditional Shi'ite or Sunni Islamic mandates, instead. 

Little girls would have no choice.

Although child marriages, sex slavery, and other abuses are rampant in modern-day Iraq, they are not technically legal. Iraqi law currently requires both men and women to be 18 years old to enter marriage, allows a woman to inherit her husband’s assets in the event of his death, and allows for unconditional inter-religious marriage.

But that's set to change and feminists in the US have been silent.

The amendments to the secularized Personal Status Law was passed in 1959, and would allow the relevant men in a marriage or proposed marriage to choose whether to apply Sunni sharia rules or Shiite sharia. It does not discuss other religions, such as Christianity, Zoroastrianism, or the Yazidi faith, which once boasted vibrant constituencies in Iraq but were almost entirely exterminated by the Islamic State (ISIS) “caliphate” in the past decade. Members of minority religions would most likely have to abide by the current form of the Personal Status Law if Muslims are in control.

Tweet

Female Iranian journalist goes on trial for reporting as American feminists remain silent

Of course it all took place in secret, behind closed doors as it were, where a female Iranian journalist went on trial for accurately reporting the coverage of the funeral of a Kurdish-Iranian woman Mahsa Amini, whose was jailed for not wearing a non-Kurdish head covering--a hijab--and mysteriously died in police custody.

The protests over the death of Amini triggered months of turmoil, Elaheh Mohammadi's lawyer told the ILNA news agency.

Mahsa Amini, 22, was taken into custody by the oxymoronically-named morality police, for allegedly violating the Islamic dress code. A huge wave of protests by brave Iranian women and men ensued all across Iran, making it the biggest challenge to the Ayatollah's religious iron-fisted rule in decades.

Mohammadi covered Amini's funeral in her Kurdish hometown Saqez, where the protests first began. The Islamic Republic accused its foreign foes of igniting the protests to destabilize the country, but miraculously, former President Donald Trump was not mentioned specifically.

"The trial of Elaheh Mohammadi went well. The date of the next session will be announced by the court," her lawyer, Shahabeddin Mirlohi, told the outlet.

Mohammadi, a reporter for the pro-reform Hammihan newspaper who is on trial in Tehran, and another journalist, Niloofar Hamedi, of the Sharq newspaper, have been accused of "colluding with hostile powers" for their coverage of Amini's death.

The charge potentially carries the death penalty under Islamic law because almost everything does in their barbaric system.

A joint statement released by Iran’s pseudo-intelligence ministry in October accused Mohammadi and Hamedi of being CIA foreign agents. 

Hamedi took a photo of Amini's parents hugging each other in a Tehran hospital where their daughter was lying in a coma, a death sentence if there ever was one.

The image, which Hamedi posted on Twitter, was the first signal to the world that all was not well with Amini, who had been detained three days earlier by Iran's morality police.

The two journalists, who have been held in Iran's notorious Evin prison since last September, will be tried separately. Hamedi's trial will begin on Tuesday, according to the judiciary.

The Islamic Republic has ignored numerous calls by human rights groups for a public trial for the two journalists.

But wouldn't it be great if American feminists had the courage to speak out.

Tweet

Rep Ilhan Omar enrages fellow Muslims by wishing gays a Happy Pride Month

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MI) loves diversity almost as much as she loves her brother; but you can't marry diversity. And now in "Pride Month," a month in which the sinfulness of pride is proudly pontificated, Omar tweeted on Wednesday: “Happy Pride Month! We won’t stop fighting until all LGBTQ+ Americans can live free from discrimination.”

While that sentiment is mainstream coming from the far-Left Omar, it goes against the grain of her public display with her hijab-wearing posing as a religious Muslim. 

It turns out that Islam is dead-set against homosexuality and the other 125 genders that go beyond male and female. Call them impulsive or call them intolerant, but in some Islamic countries, gays are executed. The preferred method is to throw gays from "high places" but hanging also can be employed. That may be why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that there are no gays in Iran.

So while Omar says she's a Sharia-observant Muslim, her best wishes to the LGBTQ+1!~87 community goes against Sharia law and insults Allah. And when you insult Allah, you insult Mohammed, and we all know how that tends to end. 

The Left's favorite religion is due for a shakeup with people like Omar as its public ambassador. 

Sharia is very clear about homosexual behavior. Mohammed said:

“Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4462)

 The “people of Lot” are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and therefore this statement became the basis for the death penalty for homosexuals in Sharia states, in spite of Pride Month.

If Omar really wanted to sock it to Islam, she might consider wearing a rainbow-colored hijab--that'll bring some attention to her.

Some Muslims were livid that Omar would extend her good wishes to the LGBTQYADDAYADDA community.

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

Dr. Abdullah Ali, an associate professor of Islamic Law [Sharia] and the Prophetic Tradition at Zaytuna College, a Muslim undergraduate college in Berkeley, CA, didn’t mention Omar by name, but he tweeted Saturday: 

“Islam means submission to God’s will. The easiest way to undermine your faith is to insist that defying God’s commands is reason for celebration. We take no pride in sin. Any Muslim who celebrates sodomy, tribadism, or any other sin as acceptable behavior is an apostate.”

So Omar is not an observant Muslima. She may wear the hijab but it's only to get votes from her large Muslim constituency. One has to also wonder whether her Muslima buddy, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) holds the same sentiment about gays, lesbians, queers, and transgender people as well as all those other categories that make no sense.

Tweet

Afghan Taliban bans women without cloth tent covering: no skin, no stoning

"Miss Afghanistan with the 2 Runners Up"

Even an ankle can make an Afghan man go mad with sexual excitement and get him ready to plow her fertile fields, as the Islamic saying goes. But there shall be no showing of lovely Afghan women's ankles, faces, or arms in Afghanistan, both day and night, lest she suffer the wrath of the "Moral Police," an obvious oxymoron.

In fact, Afghanistan's supreme leader has ordered all women [and all people with a birth canal are actually considered to be women, unlike in the West where we know better] to wear a cloth tent known as a burqa, in public and it's even better if they stay home altogether, where they can cook, clean, and allow the plowing of their fertile fields.

The Taliban made this order to ensure the "safety" of women from Afghan men who see it their moral duty to rape any woman who's "just asking for it" by showing epidermis. It's how the boys roll.

So you can say goodbye to the promises the leaders made to our alleged President Joe Biden when they said they would allow girls to go to school [they lied] and to not be target practice for not wearing a burqa in the sweltering heat.

The order was announced at a ceremony in Kabul where Taliban authorities said that women better wear a burqa that only shows their eyes as ordered by decree by HHibatullah Akhundzada – leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan--a very holy man who gave up his subscription to Penthouse.

Seriously, where are America's feminists?

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

"They should wear a chadori (head-to-toe burqa) as it is traditional and respectful," the decree said, but it doesn't apply to men who can wear whatever the hell they want. This came from the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice who also declared, "Those women who are not too old or young must cover their face, except the eyes, as per sharia directives, in order to avoid provocation when meeting men who are not mahram (adult close male relatives)."

Sharia is Islamic law that directs the behavior of all good believers such as killing the Jew hiding behind the tree that rats him out. "Oh slave of Allah! there is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'" This Hadith was reported by Al-Bukhari.

Tweet

Pakistan crowd accuses man of blasphemy, burn him alive

Photo: Jihad Watch

I recently posted a story about a Sri Lanken man in Pakistan who was being held by police for burning a Quran, the Muslim "Holy Book" and how the crowd wanted to burn him alive for blasphemy. The crowd chanted: “Gustakh-e-nabi ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda sar tan se juda” which means “The only punishment for one who insults the prophet, the head separated from the body, the head separated from the body.”

Lovely.

Well in spite of Pakistani police protection, the Sri Lankan foreign export manager of Rajco factory was taken by the crowd and burned. I will not show it here, but you can find it on Jihad Watch if your sense of morbid curiosity forces you to see this horrible event.

Robert Spencer, the founder of Jihad Watch and Islam expert explains that this should not be considered an example of "extremism." He says that "Islam mandates death for blasphemy.  Death is prescribed for those who mention 'something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam' (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.10)." 

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

We need to be realistic on how we view 'the religion of peace,' as George W. Bush called it after the orthodox Muslims among them peacefully destroyed the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in 2001.

Spencer goes on to discuss more about killing those who blasphemy against Islam. Abu Afak, who was over 100 years old and poetess Asma bint Marwan are examples he uses. Afak was killed in his sleep on Muhammad's wishes. 

And the prophet of Islam after being insulted by Marwan asked, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” She was nursing her baby at the time, but Umayr ibn Adi went to her house while she slept by her children, murdered her and the nursing baby as too. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)

Tweet

Taliban plays "hangman" with man in Herat city's main square

Wazir Ahmad Seddiqi runs a pharmacy along the side of Herat city's main square. On Saturday Seddiqi told the Associated Press that four dead bodies were brought to the square where they were put on display for all the boys and girls, men and women to see. The reason for the display was for the Taliban to show that it's the new guys in town and Biden's guys were sent home.

Three of the four bodies were then moved out of the square to other squares to make this point clear to anyone within gunshot.

According to Seddiqi, the Taliban announced in the square that the four men were caught taking part in a kidnapping and were killed by police, whether in a gun battle or just executed by the "moral police." [Morals in Islam are not the same as they are in other religions.]

The Taliban has yet to comment about any of this.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

Mullah Nooruddin Turabi, one of the founders of the Taliban who resembles an evil Santa Claus without a mustache, is the head of Islamic law, aka: sharia, when the terrorist group last ruled Afghanistan. He told the AP earlier this week that the terrorist group will once again kill those who they believe violates Allah's will [what ever happened to Allah being in charge of everything?] and if they have to cut off a few hands or feet to make an omelette, well, hey, that's the way it goes. He did add, however, that he might have "the boys" do the wet work in private.

Since the Taliban conquered Kabul and seize control of Afghanistan, with the help of President Biden, the naive of the world have been watching to see if they would continue doing what their interpretation of their scripture commanded them to do. 

Surprise, surprise, they haven't changed their interpretation of the Qu'ran and the methods of punishment therein. And thanks to Biden, this looks like the terrorism is going to continue long after Biden is gone to the place people go who advocate for the killing of unborn babies.

Tweet

The Taliban: Bringing back those crazy, hazy lazy days of terror

Even his mother has problems with that face

Sharia, or Islamic law, will once again be reinstituted in Afghanistan so don't steal anything or they'll cut off your hand; don't wear the wrong clothing, or they'll beat the crap out of you or even stone you to death [depending on how much skin you show, ladies], don't be gay or lesbian or they'll throw you off of high places; don't be Jewish, an atheist, apostate or Christian because it will be a problem for you, and don't play music because it's forbidden. Hey, don't even be a woman because you'll have no human rights, although they will treat you like decent cattle. 

And if you're a dude who thinks you're a woman, or vice-versa, you're dead meat.

Yes, Biden's boys are back in town and things are gonna change back to abnormal. There will be public executions galore, amputation of hands, and on those cold, dark nights, who knows, they might even light a human on fire for questioning the ideology of Islam.

The Associated Press interviewed Mullah Noorudding Turabi who told them to chill out from their outrage  over the Taliban's history of executions, which sometimes took place in crowded sports stadiums. The religious leader warned the reporters against interfering with the religious leaders.

“Everyone criticized us for the punishments in the stadium, but we have never said anything about their laws and their punishments,” Turabi told The Associated Press, speaking in Kabul, not a language but a city abandoned by the Biden administration, which left myriad Afghans to fend for themselves against the barbarians. “No one will tell us what our laws should be. We will follow Islam and we will make our laws on the Quran.”

And while some people pretend that Islam isn't how Turabi describes it, the truth is that he's correct. Sharia does call for amputations and killing of non believers, gays etc., etc. Some call Islamists religious fanatics. No, they are religiously orthodox Muslims who are following the precepts of the Qu'ran to the letter. 

To think the Taliban was going to rule with a kinder, softer approach is dangerously naive.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

Turabi is in his early 60s and was justice minister and head of the Ministry of Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice — we know them as the religious police — during the Taliban’s previous rule. These guys would look for violators of sharia: women not fully covered in cloth coffins, for example. They would beat these women in public with whips until they bled, and that's if the women were lucky enough to only be beaten, not killed by stoning.

Executions of convicted murderers were usually done with a single shot to the head, carried out by the victim’s family, who also had the option of accepting “blood money” and allowing the culprit to live. For convicted thieves, the punishment was amputation of a hand. For those convicted of highway robbery, a hand and a foot were amputated. 

Trials and convictions were rarely public and the judiciary was weighted in favor of Islamic clerics, whose knowledge of the law was limited to religious injunctions and the stuff they found in their beards.

Allah only knows what the punishment will be for a man peeing in public.

Tweet

Taliban shoots over crowd to end protests in Kabul--journalist arrested

Women shouting slogans at anti-Pakistan protest near the Pakistan embassy in Kabul
Sept. 7, 2021 (Hoshang Hashimi/AFP)

This is a softer, gentler Taliban, a bunch of guys who are looking to change their image, not the terrorists as to how we referred to them.

Now, instead of beheading people on camera or stoning women for showing an ankle bone or wrist, instead of shooting folks in the face for their religious reasons, they shoot over the heads of protesters--and who cares where the bullets may fly after they pull the trigger. And fire shots they did on Tuesday in order to disperse the crowd who gathered at rallies in Kabul. This is the most recent signs of defiance by Afghans against the Taliban.

Afghanistan’s new Islamic rulers have yet to form a government, but it's a good bet that not much will have changed since their last reign from 1996 to 2001. Those were the days when the Taliban publicly executed people and cut off the hands of thieves for stealing food or even gum.

“Afghan women want their country to be free. They want their country to be rebuilt. We are tired,” protester Sarah Fahim told AFP at one rally outside the Pakistani embassy, where more than 70 people, mostly brave women, had gathered.

“We want that all our people have normal lives. How long shall we live in this situation?” the 25-year-old said, being too young to remember what it was like when these scumwafers were in charge.

The crowd, in stark contrast to Portland, OR antifa and BLM rioters, merely held up banners and chanted slogans. They are frustrated with security and free passage out of the sandbox known as Afghanistan. They are also upset with Pakistan for getting involved as they have always had close ties to the Taliban.

And the US keeps sending Pakistan money so they can provide gifts for their Taliban friends. Many of those "gifts" killed Americans over the years. They have also provided a safe haven for the Taliban

Pakistan’s intelligence chief Faiz Hameed was in Kabul this weekend, reportedly to be briefed by his country’s ambassador but you can bet he also met with Taliban officials.

ISI is the Pakistani intelligence agency

Scattered demonstrations have also been held in smaller cities in recent days, including in Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif where women have demanded to be part of a new government. They have as much chance of that happening as OJ has of catching Nicole's killer.

Several Afghan journalists who were covering a demonstration that began at the Pakistani embassy were arrested by the Taliban, witnesses and Afghan media outlets said. 

Why it's almost as if the Taliban is transitioning into Twitter.

An Afghan journalist who was among those detained and was later freed told The Associated Press he was punished by the Taliban. “They made me rub my nose on the ground and apologize for covering the protest,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fears for his safety. “Journalism in Afghanistan is getting harder,” he added. 

Afghanistan’s TOLOnews TV channel said its cameraman Wahid Ahmadi was among those arrested.

An Afghan journalist covering the demonstration told AFP his press ID and camera were confiscated by the Taliban.

“I was kicked and told to go away,” he said.

The Taliban have detained TOLOnews cameraperson Wahid Ahmadi who was filming the protest today in Kabul.#TOLOnews pic.twitter.com/FhwlQk6fcb

— TOLOnews (@TOLOnews) September 7, 2021

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the Taliban had reiterated a pledge to allow Afghans to freely depart Afghanistan. And if Blinken is winking and giving a nod to it, he's as clueless as a leftist living in Yaheppets, whose TV is stuck on CNN.

The Taliban told the United States that “they will let people with travel documents freely depart,” Blinken told a news conference in Doha where he and the other useless Biden flunky, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, met their Qatari opposite numbers.

The only way the Taliban is going to abide by their "word" is if we bribe them with taxpayer money, assuming we haven't already done so.

The Taliban asserts that women will be allowed to attend university as long as classes are segregated by sex, or even divided by a curtain. Sharia law demands modesty be enforced upon penalty of death by stoning. According to sharia, pregnant women will not be stoned until after they deliver their baby and then look out!

But if you believe these clowns will permit women to obtain a higher education than men, especially Taliban men [who know slightly more than a camel], then get your TV fixed and get off that island and sail to reality. 

Women in Islam have about the same rights as those camels aforementioned.

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

Tweet

Taliban warns U.S. to mind their own business and let them do things their way

Hey, it's their culture and if the Taliban wants to stone women who commit adultery or premarital sex, or for showing their ankle bone, or going to school, it's none of the U.S.'s business, their spokesweasel Suhail Shaheen warned. 

He told Fox News on Friday that "there will be no issue about women’s rights" because Allah gives them the rights he gives them and we're here to ensure those rights are met. For instance, women have the right to go outside with a male chaperone as long as they are properly dressed. And they have the right to chose the color of their burqa, as long as it's black. So what are you talking? Get out of here."

The Taliban now basically owns Afghanistan and Joe Biden, which is concerning to our allies. But leaving that aside, they may soon become our new ally but China will first have to give them permission, if things turn out the way they look like they're going. 

Shaheen also said that he opposes western views that women who are raped are not required to marry their rapist. And he believes that women's education should focus on "cooking and doing the sex."

When asked about future relations with the U.S., Shaheen smiled and said, "we should be focusing how can we work together in a positive and constructive way which is in the best of interest of both sides."

He then proceeded to pick up a stone and throw it at Fox News' female video photographer as he screamed, "There will be no issue about the women’s rights. No problem about their education, their work. But we should not be after changing each other’s culture as we are not intending to change your culture, you should not be changing our culture."

The missed it's target.

Shaheen also described the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan as the closure of one chapter in the country’s history. The next chapter will come directly from the Qu'ran.

Can Shaheen get a hearty 'Allahu akbar?'

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

Tweet

UN Amb Linda Thomas-Greenfield wags a warning finger at the Taliban

UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield bragged that the United States used a "very strongly worded press statement" from the UN Security Council telling the barbaric scumcrumpets of the Taliban that they had better respect women's rights and humanitarian law, or else. She added that we will be watching closely while failing to mention what we will do should they violate our demand.

The Taliban assured us that they will provide women and girls all their rights in accordance with Islamic law known as sharia.

Wow, that's great. 

Now women will have half the rights given to a man and will be able to select the material their burqas will be made from. They will also not need to be bothered with such mundane things like voting or leaving the house alone and can even avoid getting involved with having to find a husband or a slave master. The Taliban will make those decisions for them, relieving them of the burden. 

Of course, if they defy the rules, they will be beaten and/or stoned to death.

Thomas-Greenfield said, "[W]e are hearing from people in Afghanistan that they are getting threats from the Taliban, and we have expressed in no uncertain terms here at the United Nations through a very strongly worded press statement from the Security Council that we expect the Taliban to respect human rights, including the rights of women and girls. We have also indicated that they have to be respectful of humanitarian law and that we do not expect to see that Afghanistan will become a safe haven for terrorists. But, again, it is not their words that we will hold them to. It is their actions that we will be watching."

Or else.

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

Tweet

Iran: Dad beheads his 13-year-old daughter in honor killing

Non-Politically Correct Fact: Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. If this fact was to be posted on social media, it would probably be taken down, but it still remains a fact.

Non-PC Fact 2: The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. 

The fact is, honor killings are generally an accepted part of the culture in many Middle East countries in spite of the fact that there are laws against these horrible acts. Al-Jazeera stated that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.” By 'conservatives,' they are, of course, referring to religious conservatives, not Republicans.

Islamic law states that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right," but Sharia law also states "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother [or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." [Reliance of the Traveller 01.1-2.] 

So, if you kill your own child or have a grandparent do it, Islam is okay with that--there are no legal penalties under Islamic [Sharia] law. Therefore, until this law is confronted regarding honor killings, women will suffer the consequences.

In this case, a 13-year-old Iranian child, Romina Ashrafi, the daughter of the murderer, suffered the ultimate punishment. She was beheaded by her father while she was asleep in bed in her family home in Hovigh, Talesh, as reported by the Daily Mail. [H/T Jihad Watch]

Romina planned to elope with a 35-year-old man and initially ran away from home after her father expressed outrage over her plans to get married. Bothe Romina's family and the man's contacted authorities which led to security forces to  conduct a hunt for them. 

They were caught and the child was sent home, in spite of her telling authorities that she would be in danger there. But the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran require she be returned to her parents where they could do with her whatever they wanted.

So while Romina slept, her father entered her room with a sickle, and chopped off her head. Still holding the bloody murder weapon, he then turned himself in to the police and confessed the honor killing, losing all chances of becoming Iran's "Father of the Year."

District governor Kazem Razmi said the girl’s father is being held in custody and an investigation into the case is underway. 

The father doesn't need to fret, however, as he will not face the death penalty. He was the victim's guardian and under Islamic Penal Code, he is exempt from "retaliation in kind," or as the locals call it, "qisas."

Sharia law says that only ‘blood owners’ – immediate family members – are allowed to demand execution for the murder of a relative. This suggests that Romina's mom is also fine with the beheading of their daughter.

Most honor killings go unpunished since families tend not to demand the death sentence for another family member--that would be cruel. According to a Tehran police official, honor killings may account for around 20 percent of Iran's murders.

What is wrong with this picture?

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.

Tweet

Saudi women now allowed to drive all by themselves like big girls

Saudi Arabia will now allow women to travel without male guardian's approval and has boldly moved out of the Seventh Century where no woman has dared to go before.

A male guardian can be her father, husband, uncle, cousin, second cousin, or her son.fo

Of course other sharia laws are still in place and a woman can be stoned to death for committing adultery, for having sex when not married, for prostitution, for being a lesbian, for being a cross-dresser, for forgetting one item on the shopping list. [Just kidding about the last one--that only results in a light beating.]

Under the drastic changes of the country, women can now apply for passports, register a child's birth, divorce [it used to only be up to the husband], and be issued official family documents. Now a father or a mother can be a legal guardian of children, whereas before, it was always the man.

However, there are still archaic laws in place that don't bode well for women. For example, a woman needs male consent to leave prison, exit a domestic abuse shelter or marry. Women still cannot pass on citizenship to their children and cannot provide consent for their kids to marry.

So under the current system, women generally have to rely on the "goodwill" and quirks of male relatives to determine how their lives are run, but American feminists are mute on this point.

The proverbial camel crap has hit the peacock feather fan in Saudi Arabia as several brave women have fled the country and made public pleas for help in seeking asylum from their family and the government.

Last year, authorities arrested many of the country’s most prominent female campaigners in a sweeping crackdown on activists.

The country’s crown prince and de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman, has attempted to present himself as a modernist reformer since being appointed heir to the throne in 2017.

But critics say the jailing of women activists under his reign and the treatment of dissidents, including Jamal Khashoggi, the jihadi journalist who was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, suggests the regime only wants change on its terms.

Prince Mohammed has brought in sweeping social and economic changes, aimed partly at weaning the country off its dependence on oil revenue. He has also dismantled some of the strictest controls over women. Last year, a driving ban was lifted, and rules were altered freeing women from needing permission from a male guardian to study at university, undergo surgery or get a job.

The crown prince has also curbed the powers of the religious police, who once publicly beat women they considered immodestly dressed and to check if they had a guardian’s permission for their activities. They also broke up mixed-sex gatherings.

Sex has always been in the forefront of Islamic thinking. You get virgins if you die a good Muslim in jihad. You can have sex slaves obtained from war booty. You can have up to four wives. You can have beautiful slave boys do whatever you want them to do, and do it for eternity, if you die in jihad.

The idea of heaven (Jannah) for a Muslim is not so different from Jeffrey Epstein's "Orgy Island." But in Jannah, the rivers flow with wine.

It seems that the greatest problem with sharia thinking is the insecurity Muslim men seem to have with their women as well as their need for power over them and treat them as religiously and mentally inferior to men.


Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not.







Tweet

Paris: Muslim bus driver refuses service to woman in a skirt

Paris -- On Tuesday night at around 11:00 pm, a 29-year-old woman,[we'll call her Elise] was waiting for the bus with her friend [we'll call the friend Simone] at the Botzaris stop in Paris 19e arrondissement.

The bus, driven by a Muslim gentleman [we'll call him Mohammed] stops for the two women, he looks them up and down, then leaves without opening the doors.

“The vehicle stops a few meters away at a red light,” says Elise, a physicist whose father, Kamel Bencheikh, is an Algerian poet. "She runs to the driver’s window to ask the driver why he didn’t open the doors."

The driver answered: “All you have to do is dress well. Look at your legs!” He was likely quite stimulated [if you know what I mean] by the sight of actual legs and had clearly copped a view.

Elise and her friend remained there for several minutes, stunned, before deciding to hail a cab.


“This guy who drives a bus, paid for by my taxes, prevented my daughter, holder of a valid Navigo bus pass, and therefore in good standing, who has never had anything to blame herself for getting on… to get on the bus just because she wore a skirt,” complained her father, who was born in Setif, Algeria.

He describes the driver as an “Islamist,” however, the daily rag known as Le Parisien, who reported the incident, added a note: “Bencheikh free interpretation,” as to disconnect Muslims who practice sharia from any bad behavior.

In anger, Kamel Bencheikh published a virulent post, then a second one on Facebook. But it was immediately censored and taken down by the social network because Mark Zuckerberg is a left-wing publisher, who gets away with censoring what he finds offensive.

“I am accused [by Facebook] of inciting hatred. But I published the facts because I wanted them to be known. To denounce this drift,” continues Bencheikh who describes himself as an “anti-Islamist militant.” His Facebook post says: “I claim my Islamophobia,” and he says he has since received hundreds of insulting messages via Messenger, none of which have been censored.

“I won’t give up,” says Elise’s father. On Saturday, with his daughter, he filed a formal complaint. He knows the police will do nothing. He knows that even if the police launched an investigation, no court would ever sentence the bus driver and the Paris transit system would not discipline him.

What does he want then? “At least an apology. I want RATP [the Paris public transport authority] to apologize publicly to my daughter”.

There's a better chance of seeing the Ayatollah at a same-sex wedding.


Please consider following Brain Flushings and visit the ads on these pages. 

Tweet

Saudi Arabia on course to set new world record

"Safe, for now"

President Trump can brag all he wants about how he's put more blacks and Hispanic folks back to work, but the real record is being chased by the theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia, and Trump can't argue with the facts.

Saudi Arabia on course for a record number of executions including public beheadings in 2019 despite claims kingdom is ‘modernizing.’

The sand castle kingdom has already reportedly 43 people in the first three months of this year – the most recent being a Syrian man who was put to death on March 13 for smuggling amphetamine pills, a capital crime and one obviously not worth losing your head over.

And if this rate continues, 172 Muslim miscreants of sharia law will have been put to death by the end of the year, it was reported.

The record for the number of executions carried out by Saudi Arabia was 158, according to human rights advocates Amnesty International, but it's looking good for record enthusiasts as it looks like this record will fall, much like the heads of those who help set it.

Of those murdered legally by the sharia compliant government this year, 21 were reportedly for drugs offenses.

But other crimes which carry the death penalty include adultery, renouncing the mafia-like religion of Islam, treason, espionage, burglary as well as murder, terrorism, rape or espionage.

Burglary? If that includes being handed too much change after a cash transaction, half my family would be dead.

Beheading remains the most common form of execution and the sentence traditionally carried out in a public square on a Friday after prayers for the entertainment of the public and to show them just how seriously the government takes Islamic law.

Deera Square in the centre of the capital Riyadh is known locally as "Chop Chop Square.”

Figures from anti-death penalty campaigners Reprieve, showed that executions doubled in Saudi Arabia under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

[I have always said that you must be wary of people with a 'bin' before their last name.]

Bin Salman is the country's effective ruler and the driving force behind liberal reforms in nation, including allowing women to drive. But if they get into even a minor fender-bender, they can lose more than just their license, if you know what I mean.

The number of believers put to death between June 2017 – when he came to power – and March 2018 was 133, compared to just 67 in the preceding eight months before he was installed. His motto is: "When I'm in charge, heads will roll."

Nearly 40 percent of those executed last year were convicted of drugs offenses, with 77 percent of them being foreign nationals.

In October the execution of Tuti Tursilawati, an Indonesian maid, without either her family or the Indonesian authorities even being told led to worldwide condemnation.

She was found guilty in June 2011 of killing her Saudi slave master, but claimed she had acted in self-defense after he tried to rape her.

Despite an upward trend in the number of executions since 2000, Saudi Arabia is still in third place behind China and Iran, where between 249 and 285 people were executed in 2018. In 4th and 5th place are Iraq and Pakistan, but bin Salman is hopeful that this year his country will take the trophy for most executions.

"It's just so hard with all those millions of Chinese people doing bad things. But, Inshallah, I will make beheadings great again!" bin Salman said. "We will be number one."

Saudi Arabia’s largest mass execution was in 1980 when 63 rebels were put to death for seizing Mecca’s Grand Mosque. You don't blow your nose in Superman's cape or mess with a mosque in Saudi Arabia.

In 2015 the authorities in Riyadh advertised for eight new executioners because it couldn’t keep up with the rising number of death sentences. Although it's a thankless job, there were plenty of takers.

The ad asked for no specific skills but said the job included “executing a judgment of death.” In other words, doing Allah's work.

Over the years there have been reports of the bizarre and barbaric punishments handed down in Saudi Arabia. The country has no written penal code and no code of criminal procedure and judicial procedure. They kind of "wing it" and use sharia law which has been barbaric since 652.

The list of punishments makes for grim reading and there have been reports of people being sentenced to crucifixion, amputation, eye-gouging, paralysis, stoning and a flogging. Currently, the Saudis are considering using: a hundred kicks in the balls, soldering closed the urinary meatus, pouring boiling pablum on the pudenda of female offenders, and giving excruciating Indian burns to offenders before beheading them.


I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.





Tweet

Saudi wife wants to leave you? There's an app for that

Ms. Saudi Beauty Contest

Let's say you're a Saudi husband and your wife thinks she would rather be married to the family goat than to you, and you realize she wants to leave the country. No sweat--you can stop her.

There's an app that can stop her from booking it to Broadway without your permission. Hey, it isn't crazy, it's basic Sharia law:

“The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home…because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet…said, ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out of it if he is averse” (Reliance of the Traveller m10.4).

In an article in Morocco World News, by Zakaria Oudrhiri, "Saudi Arabia Makes App to Stop Women from Traveling Without Consent," the good news for guys is spelled out. Here's a small taste of it, [h/t Jihad Watch]:

Rabat – The Saudi National Information Center has developed a mobile application called “Absher” (Arabic for “Enjoy”) that allows male guardians, usually husbands and fathers, to monitor women’s movements. 

The app, available on iOS and Android, is designed to help guardians with tasks like renewing a driver’s license or paying fines, but also to monitor women and stop them from leaving the country without their consent. 

The app sends a notification when a woman presents her passport at border control. Border police will deny the woman travel if her guardian says so….

So guys, no wife around? No worries. Just use the handy app and zing! she can't get on that plane to fly the friendly skies to freedom. 

And, as a special bonus, Sharia Law lets you beat her when you get her back home. Just don't kill her or you'll have to fill out a lot of paper work in Arabic.


I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

Ontario to have Islamic Party to run in next election

The Islamic Party of Ontario is a new political party that sounds like it's more religious than political, just like political Islam itself. Well, they have formed up and now plan to run a candidate in the next Provincial election.

The party has the audacity to claim that Islam is Canada's native religion, which is pure bull crap, but leftists and Islamists tend to say the opposite of the truth and many people, particularly those with the least amount of factual information tend to believe it.

Among the party’s principles and policies and once you read it in full, you will realize their goal is to make Canada a sharia-compliant country:

Islam is the only and oldest DEEN of GOD brought and started by Adam (p.b.u.h.), the first man and the first messenger of God, created by God without mother and father. It is the same DEEN brought by Jesus (p.b.u.h.) before Muhammadﷺ who born without father. It is a misconception that Islam is a “religion” created by Muhammad ﷺ. Islam is the only way to attain peace and justice and provides laws without any prejudice….We understand and believe that Islam is the native DEEN of Ontario and Canada

Canada? Next it will be the United States of America. No, Islam is not the native DEEN [religion] of Ontario and Canada. The Church of England and the Catholic Church of France as well as the beliefs of the Aboriginal are native to Canada. So while Islam stole the Kosher laws from the Jews and called them halal, along with other Judaic traditions such as circumcision and claiming it as theirs first, Muslims are now trying to steal a land to which they claim to have native status.

That's a load of bull, just like Islamic claims to Israel.

The history of Canada is not widely known but we do know it covers the arrival of Paleo-Indians thousands of years ago to the present day. Before the Europeans came, the land in what is known as present-day Canada was inhabited for millennia by Indigenous peoples with distinct spiritual beliefs, trade networks and social organizations, none of which at all resembles Islam.

Beginning in the late 15th century, the French and British came to Canada. They explored, colonized and did battle over various areas within North America. In 1534 the colony known as New France was established but in 1763, after the Seven Years' War, it was ceded to the British.

Still no Muslim got his hands dirty over any of this.

The current British Province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada in 1791 and reunified in 1841. In 1867, the Province of Canada was joined with the British colonies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, forming a self-governing entity called Canada. This expanded by incorporating British North America, ending with Newfoundland and Labrador in 1949.

While responsible somewhat independent government existed in Canada since 1948, the English continued to set its foreign and defense policies for the country until the end of World War One.

In 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster, Canada was finally recognized as co-equal with the United Kingdom. In 1982, once the Constitution was patriated, the final bonds of legal dependence on the British was cut.

Today, Canada consists of ten provinces and three territories. It is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state, and is a parliamentary democracy.

And while the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is a strong advocate of multiculturalism, Islam is still not native to the land and the phenomena of Islamic supremacy has no respect for diversity, especially from the infidel. But the critics are silent, often out of fear from the danger of being labeled a blasphemer, thus in danger suffering the punishment [death] from such criticism.

Now it's clear that the Islamization of Western societies is advancing. In Canada, it’s progressing very fast, especially following the passage of anti-Islamophobia Motion M03 by Parliament. The United States is slower to remove our speech laws, but the left, particularly young idiots, want to remove our/their rights of free speech.

Social media and email correspondence is going full-blast with the revelation that the Islamic Party of Ontario plans to run in the next Ontario provincial election.

Who is to at fault? Is it the Islamic supremacists who, for years, have spoken openly about their global agenda? Or is it their Leftist water carriers and other enablers who have aided them by chipping away at the cornerstones of democracy, primarily the freedom of speech? And will it be coming to a neighborhood near you anytime soon? It looks bad for us too.

Proponents of Islam utilize the victimology subterfuge while the willfully blind help them do so in the name of tolerance, multiculturalism and diversity. [Ironically, sharia respects none of those.] These enablers are generally employed in the “anti-racism” industry, like anti-Semitic, anti-white leaders of the Women's March that pretends to be for all women.

To better understand the nature of what is going on in Ontario, Canada, and the Islamic Party of Ontario, an article in the American Center for Democracy & Economic Warfare Institute covers the topic quite well. Below is a small excerpt:

Leftist hypocrites are forceful opponents of “hate,” yet the “anti-hate” industry is dominated by the worst purveyors of selective hate and propaganda. The “anti-hate” peddlers benefit from their status as leaders in a sphere that thrives on maintaining and manipulating victimhood for the benefit of certain individuals and groups. While they fan the flames of the worst kind of bigotry — the bigotry of low expectations of visible minorities — they care very little, if at all, about the intolerance and bigotry that define normative Islam. Their careers are defined by their lambasting of white people against essentially everyone else (visible minorities), and assume and insist that white privilege is to blame for the world’s woes. Never mind 1400 years of jihad. So Islamic anti-semitism, Islamic bigotry against gays and blacks, Sharia supremacy of men over women, and even the color prejudice that exists within Islam (and also other visible minority groups) are ignored as a matter of course by these self-styled “anti-racism” crusaders.

Sharia does not tolerate individuality. Sharia does not tolerate free speech. It gives unequal justice to women and robs them of their rights while pretending they are special.

If sharia is coming to Canada, we better build some kind of wall to stop its spread.

Well here we are in the start of a new year and the world still hasn't come to an end with President Trump in the White House, in spite of what the media and the left [but I repeat myself] would have you believe. 

I wish you health and happiness. I hope that you will  follow Brain Flushings throughout the year and feel free to comment on any issues of concern. Please subscribe and check out the sponsors on these pages too.




Tweet

Has Germany gone sharia on child brides?

Muhammed married Ayisha when she was SIX YEARS OLD! and he was in his early 50s. Being the gentleman that he was, he didn't consummate the marriage until she was fully NINE YEARS OLD! He went along with the wishes of the child's daddy. Since it's supposed to be cool to follow the same path as the prophet of Islam, many Muslim men today marry children.

As most of us know, Germany has an immigration problem due to the incredibly stupid open door policy of Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor. The question now is: Has Germany now bowed to sharia law and institutionalized child marriage?

That's kind of the implication one can see in a ruling by Germany’s highest court, which recently stated that a new law banning child marriage may be unconstitutional.

Maybe these idiots need to tweak their constitution just a tad to the right.

“The ruling, which effectively opens the door to legalizing Sharia-based child marriages in Germany, is one of a growing number of instances in which German courts are — wittingly or unwittingly — promoting the establishment of a parallel Islamic legal system in the country,” Soeren Kern writes for the Gladstone Institute.

Kern’s report details the back story to the ruling:

The case involves a Syrian couple — a 14-year-old Syrian girl married to her 21-year-old cousin — who arrived in Germany at the height of the migrant crisis in August 2015. The Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) refused to recognize their marriage and separated the girl from her husband. When the husband filed a lawsuit, a family court in Aschaffenburg ruled in favor of the Youth Welfare Office, which claimed to be the girl’s legal guardian. 

In May 2016, an appeals court in Bamberg overturned the decision. The court ruled that the marriage was valid because it was contracted in Syria, where, according to Sharia law, child marriages are allowed. The ruling effectively legalized Sharia child marriages in Germany.

It also, in effect, bowed to sharia's supremacy over German law in the eyes of a people who have lost their own sense of culture.

Recognizing the recurring issue of child marriage in Germany due to the influx of immigrants from Muslim countries (where there is oftentimes no age restriction on marriage due to sharia law), the German parliament passed a law in June 2017 setting 18 years old as the minimum age for marriage in Germany. In addition, the law nullified all marriages contracted under the age of 16, even those which were conducted abroad.

Of course, this disproved my point that they have lost their sense of culture and bowed to sharia. But wait. . .

However, a little more than a year later, on December 14, 2018, German’s highest court, the Federal Court of Justice, ruled that the law maybe unconstitutional in that it violates a number of articles in the Basic Law (the equivalent of German’s constitution) – namely: Article 1 regarding human dignity, Article 2 regarding the free development of personality, Article 3 regarding equal protection and Article 6 regarding protection of marriage and family.

There is no article on child rape, I suspect.

The court then deferred to the Federal Constitutional Court to determine whether the ban on child marriages was legal as well as whether the issue should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

As noted by Kern, “By insisting that the legitimacy of child marriages be examined on a case-by-case basis, the court has opened the door to so-called cultural exceptions, namely those enshrined in Sharia law, which does not set any age limit to marriage.”

So if the girl is, say, eleven but has her menstrual cycle, does that qualify her as marriageable material?

But Kern pointed out that the court ruling ignored a basic and highly important principle in Germany’s civil law code which states:

“A legal standard of another State shall not be applied where its application results in an outcome which is manifestly incompatible with the essential principles of German law. In particular, it is not applicable if the application is incompatible with fundamental rights.”

This is not the first time Germany has considered (and ruled by) sharia law over German law. Dating back to the year 2000, a number of cases involving marriage, divorce, inheritance and polygamy have been adjudicated according to sharia law by German courts. Other rulings have made exceptions to German law for Muslims.

What the hell is the West coming to? Can I get an Allahu akbar?

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do.

Tweet