Raymond Ibrahim: More Evidence of Egyptian Police Stripping Women Naked?

miriam writes:

"I have been in this business for 30 years and I think this video is fake. just listen to the sound him slapping her.."

What "business" endows you with the authority to know whether a slapping sound is authentic or not?

The slap occurs at precisely 2:58 in the video. I've heard slaps to the face before. Some slaps may sound more muffled or "thuddy" only because the slapper doesn't get a good flat strike of the palm against his victim. This particular slap is a nice juicy one that resonates sharply -- which I have heard a few times in my life. The slapper here just got unremarkably lucky -- which is not a herculean feat. There's nothing about it that necessarily, or automatically, rules it out as inauthentic; and to apodictically asseverate so -- particularly on the basis of some unnamed "business" (what, videographer for Iranian-Communist demonstrations?) -- is ludicrous.

Now, if you had been working as the sound man for David Lynch for 25 years, I might take your alleged expertise more seriously.

I run the sales for one America's biggest and most respected production and post production facilitie and that is why I am speaking with authority. so that you know right here in NYC we 16 fully blown sound suites and just about everything you see on you see on some of the most watched pay per views on TV is mixed here. that authority.
and what more ludicrous, offensive and racist about your comments is the Iranian..communist thing. either have an intellegent ocnversation with me or do NOT respond to my posts!!!

"have an intellegent ocnversation "

OK LL, ocnverse (sic) intelligently!

Sorry, it's been a long day and this is a knee slapper (pun intended).

But I'm a man, and for the Grace of God, not a woman in Dar al Islam.

These women are conditioned to think they are responsible for their own abuse. Women in domestic violence relationships (i.e., Islamic marriages) need help getting away from their abusers, who do not want to give up control and domination especially since Islam give them the "right" to abuse women. Most battered women are killed while trying to escape abusive men in free (Western) societies and it takes an average of seven attempts to get away completely. In Islamic societies, those statistics are most likely much, much higher. The West needs to have zero tolerance for the enforcement of Sharia law (officially and unofficially) as seditious and against individual rights and zero tolerance for domestic abuse.

Don't be silly. Muslim women are not going to leave Islam in sufficient numbers to save either themselves, or Islam, or us. The data indicates that Muslim women more often than not are suffering from a depth of Stockholm syndrome unique in all world history (as are Muslim men, for that matter), and that they love Islam more than they love themselves or even their own children.

Evidently, all the tireless, patient, lengthy arguments Hugh Fitzgerald put forth here for years defending the grimly reasonable proposition that Islam will never be "solved" but will only remain forever a problem to be managed -- never sank in among the Jihad Watch readership.

The full horror, the full catastrophe, of Islam has not really been fully digested, assimilated even by most in the anti-Islam movement -- for good reason: the mind, the soul, the psyche, and the heart of normal civilized people all recoil and shudder at what is there; and so, many different ways are sought, often semi-consciously, to deny that there exists this uniquely grotesque and ghoulish mass movement infecting and propelling over a billion humans around the world.

It cannot be -- therefore, somehow, by gum, we'll think of a way whereby it simply isn't.

Well, it is. And it's endangering our lives and property, and that danger is metastasizing now, even on top of a 1,400-year history of already mass-murdering over 250 million and ravaging and virtually ruining a third of the world. And those who continue to flinch in the face of it and gymnastically contort themselves in a way to save it and us from it, instead of facing it head on, are whether they realize it or not aiding and abetting that danger.

I'm not being silly. I'm being cautiously optimistic. Huge difference. With all the advances in modern technology and with the world becoming a smaller place by way of travel and telecommunications, I envision huge numbers of Muslims, both men and women, but especially women, getting their fill of Islam by a half century or so from now. Islam cannot stand up to scrutiny the way certain other religions have been able to do so. It will collapse like a house of cards precisely because it is 1) stupid, 2) totalitarian, 3) decidedly anti-woman, 4) silly, 5) founded by a total fraud who was a psychopath and a pervert. Count on it, LemonLime.

I understand, Mary, that Muslim women are conditioned to justify to themselves the abuse and subordination which they are subjected to, but, as I already wrote to LemonLime, I don't think this can continue as the Islamic world is forced into modernity. What we're seeing, I believe, is the last gasp of Islam before scrutiny of it, criticism of it, understanding of it, reaches warp speed.

Islam is at least as much of an anachronism as the Soviet Union was and look what happened to it. And no one should forget that thirty years ago hardly anyone except Ronald Reagan, to his eternal credit I might add, foresaw the collapse of the USSR within a very short period of time. It is in large part because Islam is the only major religion which is totalitarian in structure and ideology that I think its days are numbered. It has slipped under the historical radar screen for a long time, largely because no one has really cared about the pathetic Islamic world for centuries until the past thirty years or so, but now that the entire world is aware of Islam anew, it is only a matter of time before it, like all totalitarian ideologies, is put on the trash heap of history, though it will not be done without much suffering and tragedy. Islam will not go quietly away, but eventually it will go away.

Amen to that, Wellington.

Thanks for your reply, j_not_a. I understand your point about such pathetic women, but I think they are waning and not waxing. Give Muslim women around the world another ten or twenty or thirty years and see how many still want to defend a religion which is ready made to insure permanent male dominance over females. I think Islam is doomed for many reasons but one of the more major ones is that it simply does not allow for full equality in this world (or the next for that matter) between the sexes.

Well, if I'm wrong here, then getting rid of Islam, which mankind will eventually have to do unless it wants to submit to Muslim tyranny, something which I consider highly unlikely, will be even more difficult than I imagine right now. But I don't think I am wrong about huge numbers of Muslim women exiting from a religion which considers them second-rate human beings (though still superior to any kuffaar, but then kuffaars are, in ever increasing numbers, getting sick of Islam too and so...). Ah yes, time will tell.

. .and it's '' street-cred '' in the West can only bluster for so long. . A lot of cages are being rattled by these pretenders.

Well, as I said, j_not_a, time will tell. One thing's for sure and that is either you'll prove correct or I will.

I hope it does go away. I hope it does not take a world war, like what it took to stop the Nazis (Hitler is a hero to global jihadists). I do think if we impeach President Obama we might have a chance to prevent his eventual dhimmitude contract with the Muslim world via the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is zero chance, Mary, that Obama will be impeached. Zero.

There is, however, something like a 50% chance that Obama will be defeated in November. Play the odds.

Hi, Wellington. I was curious about what a President would have to do to risk impeachment, so I googled, and this came up:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Number 2 strikes me - when Obama said (I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember what he said word for word) he considered part of his job as President was to protect islam - surely *that* isn't part of the 'proper function and purpose of the office' ? Obviously I bow to your knowledge as an American and a lawyer (I think you said you were, once), but I would have thought it's certainly a *questionable* statement.

"I'm not being silly. I'm being cautiously optimistic."

You're being one or the other. You would be correct in your self assessment if the Wilsonian expectation about different cultures -- including Islam -- all being at heart the same, it accurate; where "at heart the same" includes the capability of reforming as we have been capable of doing. The evidence about Islam and about Muslims now, throughout the world, and for 1400 years -- massive, mountainous and monstrous -- suggests otherwise. To lean against the bulk and weight of that evidence in favor of a hypothetical ideal seems not only irrational to me, but also remarkably reckless. Like pulling the trigger of a gun you have up to your head -- or better yet your friend's or mother's head -- a gun you know has one bullet in 8 chambers, banking on the trust you have imagined has developed between yourself and the Oriental who has handed that gun to you.

If Second Person Plural You want to trust Muslims in the context of massive policies that will continue to magnify the dangers the fanatics among them are going to cause us, do it on your own dime -- risk your own lives and the lives of your own family -- but don't drag the rest of the West with you.

Whatever you googled, Jan, is pure crap. The Constitution is very clear about what grounds must exist in order for a President to be impeached. They are found in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. The grounds are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Constitution says nothing about "Behaving grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office." Nothing.

Anyone angling for Obama's impeachment, based on what is known about him so far, is simply not informed about the Constitution or American law. And, yes, I am a lawyer. Hope you and yours are doing well.

Ironic you mention Wilsonian idealism, since I consider Wilson probably the most overrated President of all time. I think part of this is due to the fact that historians get to rate Presidents more than anyone else and Wilson is the only President who had a PhD, and in history no less. I detect academic incest here. Long have. But I digress.

I'm just as realistic as you are. The difference is what we consider realistic. You look at the very sorry record of Islam over 1400 years, with all its brainwashing powers to keep the faithful enthralled with "the true faith." And you have reason to do so. I don't deny your conclusions are logical and even clever. But that doesn't necessarily make them right or complete.

I see a religion in Islam which is finally going to get its come-upannce now that it is exposed to the kind of scrutiny due to a myriad of factors that have never existed before in Islam's history, such as modern textual criticism, an entire world focused on Islam in a way that was not possible before current technology and travel, Muslims in droves exposed to different ideas because of the information revolution, the non-Muslim portion of the world which will become increasingly sickened by Islam's excesses and silliness, etc. Islam simply will not be able to withstand examination the way, say, Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism have. Also, Muslims acting badly will work against Islam enormously as each decade moves into another. And it is simply not realistic, as I see it, to think that extremely few Muslims will not be affected by all this. We're working with a whole new set of factors that did not exist for the first 1400 years or so of Islam and so your continuing to bring up the past as evidence of a future that will not change where Islam is concerned, both for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, is one I reject. With reason and not with Wilsonian idealism.

Thanks for the reply, Wellington. Hope you and yours are well also.

Well, LemonLime, I concede your pessimism may prove correct and my optimism wrong. I'm just playing the odds and I just don't see how anything as tyrannical and stupid and silly and so damn chauvanistic as Islam can last, let alone take over, in truly modern times.

I am, however, very much in accord with you that Islam will not go quietly and that it will be a very messy affair. And a long one---that's why I have often referred to this struggle of struggles we're in as a new Hundred Years War (I'd date it's beginning, if I had to, to 1979). I also concur with you about taking defensive measures in the meantime, for instance, banning further Muslim immigration to the West, find whatever legal (or even not so legal) pretext necessary to do so (expelling Muslims, however, simply for being Muslim simply cannot happen under present Western constitutions and legal systems; these would need to be changed and this is a mountain of an obstacle to cross, if indeed it can be crossed).

Most important, I believe, is that we need a new set of elites in large numbers to constructively but firmly criticize Islam for the many troubling doctrines that is has. People like Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, numerous members of several state legislatures and, most especially, Alan West have started the process. And even in Europe some light has begun to shine with the banning in France and Belgium of the glorified garbage bags many Muslim women wear, the trenchant comment by Merkel last year that multiculturalism has failed, the statements by Cameron that if you're going to come to Britain you must accept and adopt British culture and, of course, in The Netherlands with that intrepid politician, Geert Wilders.

Now, I know that with many, if not all, of these instances I cited you would respond that a faux distinction is made between radical Muslims and so-called moderate Muslims, with the latter being left off the hook, but I see the glass half full here, not half empty, and look upon the current exculpation of some Muslims as a very understandable step, one of many, in the right direction. Eventually, I predict, no Muslim will be accorded positive status and all will be put on the defensive, much like other totalitarians such as Neo-Nazis and the fools that still believe Marxism has merit.

Always good to have a give and take with you. Remember, we have different strategies, even different predictions, but we're united on the issue of the malevolence of Islam and the problematical nature of all Muslims. Take care.