She escaped, but here is a glimpse into Europe's glorious future. "Spain: Salafist criminal 'procedure' condemns a woman to death on adultery charges," from Tea and Politics, December 5 (a translation of "Un 'juicio' islamista condenó a una mujer a morir por adúltera en Reus," from El Periódico, December 5, with thanks to Claudia):
An Islamist procedure in full. Like the ones held by the Talibans in Afghanistan or by extremist militias in Somalia. But this time it was held in an isolated masía (sort of cottage typical of Catalonia). There, 9 islamists, all of Maghrebi origin, had kidnapped a woman and retained her.The woman was judged by her captors, who had decided to held a procedure in which they accused her of adultery. Supporting an extremist version of the Islamic law, the Sharia, the kidnappers decided to condemn her to death, according to investigation's sources.
Luckily, she escaped and went to a police station (Mossos d'Esquadra). According to the agents, her kidnappers were planning to execute her in a short period of time.
After carrying an investigation on the woman's statement, the Mossos entered on Nov 14th's midnight in three apartments, located in Reus (Baix Camp) and Valls (Alt Camp) and arrested 9 men, all of them linked to the Salafist movement, an ultraorthodox Islamic school very spread throughout Tarragona. No violent incident have been previously reported as committed by this movement in these surroundings.
Criminal Judge no. 1 from Tarragona has believed what the woman denounced and has ordered imprisonment without bail of 7 of the 9 arrested Islamists. They are accused of performing an ilegal arrest, attempted murder and illicit association....
This is an appropriate way to deal with those who would impose Shaaria law upon an unwilling community. Cite them for their deeds. Let's start with kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder.
Let them see and understand that in a western country, western law trumps whatever religion and traditions they bring with them.
And if they can't handle that, suffer the consequences.
"No violent incident have been previously reported as committed by this movement in these surroundings."
If the object of the violence were mere, lowly women, and if as a result they were dead and buried, maybe that's why there have been no previous reports.
why not just deport them and their immediate families...
Why pass the trash? Why not assert our own justice upon them as we are supposed to. It's no less than they'd do with us in their countries...
Isn't this exactly what the Eurodhimmis that criticized the Swiss brave and Churchillian decision to ban minarets want to see all over Europe? I just don't think the general public will sit idly upon learning about this while there is still time to reverse the tide of islamization on the continent... I suppose those elite Eurodhimmis still have to work a lot harder to muzzle the press in their countries, in order to give their inbred bedouin savage nazi friends more time to grow in numbers, until their autonomous patches of the Arabian Peninsula on European soil have become large and populous enough for Eurabia to become an irreversible reality.
What a horror—expect to see more and more of this, all over the Western world. And how long will it take before these enforcers decide to kidnap Kaffirs as well to enforce Shari'ah sentences on them?
Spain for the islamists is really an muslim state and just needs to be reconquered. funny thing is the natives are still in the fog about it.
"Supporting an extremist version of the Islamic law, the Sharia, the kidnappers decided to condemn her to death"
This is not an "extremist version", this is just traditional Islam the way Muhammad would have it. Why can't reporters & News editors ever study Islam and its horrid history?
The problem is that the "moderate" Muslims in any western country deliberately or inadvertently give cover to these "extremist" Muslims since they provide a rationale to think that Muslims & their Islam are really not so bad, it's just these tiny minority of "extremists". People, and through them eventually the governments, must come to recognize that Islam itself is the root problem and the evil that must be fought.
Again the question of whether these are criminal matters or acts of war.
We have to, as surely nobody outside the resistance will, give some consideration to what differentiates a criminal act from an act of war and, by extension, what differentiates an enemy combatant from a criminal.
It is immediately obvious that the difference lies in either the context, the intentions/motivations or both -- and I am inclined to base most of the differentiation on the context, although the intention/motivation, as difficult as that may be to determine, remains relevant.
The actions themselves can be and often are the same -- killing, stealing, destroying things, kidnapping, denunciation, lying etc ...
It is the context that tells us whether the action performed was:
-- an act of self defense
-- a crime
-- an act of war
(I am ignoring the obvious issue of organized crime here as a less significant differentiation)
We also need to reflect on the obvious question of WHY we must make such distinctions. And the answer presents itself immediately.
A crime is more limited in its scope, motive and participants. So once one has determined and stopped, incarcerated ot killed the criminal[s] involved, the threat to everybody else is removed.
However, in the case of war, the scope, motive and number of participants is far larger, so the same prevention, incarceration or killing (of those involved in any one specific destructive act) does NOT eliminate the threat to everybody else, if fact those measures may not even reduce the threat to any significant extent.
There is also the issue of what is the most economical and expeditious way of dealing with crime as opposed to dealing with war, comensurate of course with one's moral standards. They are not the same.
I will add that one has no more choice in matters of war than in matters of personal defense. One may not enjoy personal confrontation, but that is irrelevant once a criminal has selected you as a victim. The same is true of war. One may not wish to conduct a war, but that is irrelevant once a sufficiently numerous and capable party has selected you as an enemy.
And the issue of whether the aggressor party is a government or some sort of non-governmental organization, or even an amorphous mob animated by some common sentiment or grievance or ideology, while relevant to the strategy and tactics of combat, is irrelevant to the basic definition of the situation.
I would very much like to see my fellow posters come up with an airtight definition of how to tell a crime from an act of war.
well, my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, what do you think about this application of sharia?
This sounds excruciatingly like a machine translation. At present it still takes, thank god, humans. Perhaps, someday, machines will be able to, but that is a long way away. For literary translation, it will never be possible.
These, by Islamic view, would be acts of war as dar al Harb is the country they are occupying and it is a country they are at war with. Once that country accepts shari'a law then that country is dar al Islam and it is at peace.
So, yes, by definition it is an act of war.
By our definition it is a criminal offence. "They are accused of performing an ilegal arrest."
Since our countries are not yet dar al Islam we abide by our laws and they cannot be accused of "acts of war".
Perhaps that is why the White House has decided to try KSM in civil court. It is wrong and they are deluded when thinking we are not at war with Islam.
Until the west wakes up we are stuck in this legal groove.
A few years a ago I read a book by William Kunstler, a deceased radical lawyer, on the Hall-Mills murder case and he theorized that the couple were killed by the KKK. While Kunstler offered no evidence, he did bring up an interesting allegation, and I don't know how true it is, that the KKK, besides the usual racially-based murders, would also punish people for infidelity and spousal abuse.
In a sense, then, except for spousal abuse of course, salafists, in wanting to kill an adulteress, were behaving like the KKK. Both salafists and the KKK are, after all, highly moral organizations, in their own warped ways.
I like these parts of the report:
"Luckily, she escaped and went to a police station (Mossos d'Esquadra)...
"After carrying an investigation on the woman's statement, the Mossos entered on Nov 14th's midnight in three apartments, located in Reus (Baix Camp) and Valls (Alt Camp) and arrested 9 men, all of them linked to the Salafist movement, an ultraorthodox Islamic school very spread throughout Tarragona...
"Criminal Judge no. 1 from Tarragona has believed what the woman denounced..".
A Muslim woman escaped from Muslim men who were planning to kill her. She went to the Infidel police, who took her fearful story seriously, and promptly arrested the Mohammedans.
The further twist to this story is, of course, that in a Muslim country, under sharia, when the 'crime' involves sexual misconduct (such as rape or adultery) *a woman's testimony is inadmissible in court*. That's right: whether she is the accused (adultery) or even the victim of a rape, nothing she says can be taken into account; nor is the testimony of any other woman (sister, mother, maid, etc.) who may have witnessed what did or did not happen.
So: if a bunch of Muslim men decide to accuse a woman of adultery, and are determined to convict her, even if the charge is false there is no way she can avoid being killed unless she can rustle up a male witness or witnesses willing and able to speak for her. Because *no-one* is supposed to believe a woman. Her word counts for nothing.
Whereas the non-Muslim policemen, and the non-Muslim judge, are perfectly willing to hear a woman's testimony and give it as much weight in court as anyone else's.
This woman got a fair hearing, and justice, from non-Muslim police and non-Muslim judge; they have saved her life.
She should be encouraged to reflect on the difference between the way sharia treats women, and the way non-Muslim law treats women; and she should be invited to apostasise.
Post script: Now, if only Law Enforcement and Judges in Florida and Ohio had been prepared to believe Rifqa Bary, as these nice Spanish policemen and this very sensible Spanish judge believed the distraught Muslim female escapee!
This is great news. The Spanish police and the judge did the right thing, they arrested the criminals. Thanks a lot Spanish police.
"They are accused of performing an ilegal arrest, attempted murder and illicit association...."
This is the right way to proceed, and they should be expelled to dwell in their Magrebhi burrows where they come from. No place in Europe for scum like that.
Que lastima!
The prosecutor should make a big deal out of their witness's testimony, how important it is. She should also be offered witness protection after the trial.