Initially, this article was to be about why Western nations have become so politically correct and bend over backwards to accommodate various cultures and beliefs – often to the detriment of their own. Why there has been the creation of such things as Hate Laws in the United States, the Human Rights Commission in Canada, and other sundry assaults on free speech and actions in most Western nations.

However, with the possibility of a candidate winning the presidency looming, based not upon his experience and qualifications, but upon his skin color, and the fear of race riots if he doesn’t, it’s time to look at something that has been happening not only in the United States, but in a number of other Western nations as well.

There is an underlying shame in countries like America and Canada for the same reasons: not for one’s own actions, but the shame of events which occurred in the past such as slavery and what was done to the indigenous population. While it is more commonly known and talked about what happened in America, Canadians still bear the burden of their history. In other countries, while not racially motivated, a number of events were ethnically, economically, politically or religiously motivated.

Germans, most of whom weren’t even alive when the holocaust happened, bear the shame of their forefathers. It’s due to shameful events in their history, that most Western nations bend over backwards to prove they’re not racist or prejudiced. The families, descendants, and sometimes whole ethnic groups or races also bear the shame of having been victims.

Although the majority of Western nations operate under a guilt culture, which is basically the “innocent until proven guilty” concept, most have an underlying current of shame.

While not the same, shame and guilt are related, and are often confused. Shame can be an extension of guilt, for an event which may or may not have happened, or for which a person may or may not be responsible. Shame is about our inner self rather than our actions, and doesn’t have to be “rooted in personal wrong doing or blame.” People can feel shame for actions they were neither involved in nor responsible for.

One can feel shamed by something over which they had no control, such as a birth defect. A woman who has been raped often feels shame, even though there was no personal causality. People often have a sense of shame for events they were not involved in, or responsible for. People who were victims of a crime or abuse often feel shame because they feel they should have been able to do something to avoid it. The shame of being the product of an illegitimate birth, although less so now, can follow a person throughout life, even though he had no control over those events.

“For example, there is some evidence that children of Nazi war criminals have felt a great sense of shame, even though they were only infants when their fathers were convicted. We might feel shame because of the actions of another family or group member if we are known as “one of them” or as “cut from the same cloth…. …in some societies shame by association can be so acute that honor might only be restored by murdering the one who has brought the shame on the family (e.g. killing a wife or daughter for illicit sex)” (Shame: Interpersonal Behavior, Psychopathology, and Culture by Paul Gilbert, Bernice Andrews).

“…Shame seems always to involve a more-or-less sudden decrease in self-esteem, a moment in which we are revealed as somewhat less than we want to believe.”

Guilt comes from a sense of having done wrong: something you did, were responsible for, or felt you were responsible for. This is often confused with shame, especially when the offense is something over which they really had no control. The stereotype of the Jewish mother is a good example of this: a person who controls her children through guilt. One form of expiation is the Confessional:  a method used to liberate one from their guilt, as once spoken, and penance done, it absolves us of our guilt. It is “a simple trade of one action for another.”

Donald Nathanson, author of In Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self explained that the discomfort of shame is often so great that people will go to any lengths to avoid it. “Many of us who have studied shame in depth believe that it is a primary force in social and political evolution. Shame – our reaction to it and our avoidance of it – becomes the emotion of politics and conformity…its influence in human civilization is paramount.”

The behaviors associated with shame, whether triggered to cope or conceal, to avoid being shamed or shame being discovered, are often similar. Socially, they can be “focused to soothe others,” to act as a form of appeasement or, as some authors have suggested, evidence themselves as “anger and even aggression.” 

This could explain the hostility and distrust many Caucasians discern from many African Americans, whether or not the Caucasian is racist, has committed any offense towards them or their people, or whether or not their forefathers had anything to do with slavery. There is a “you’re one of them” attitude, based solely on color. It is, in essence, a reverse racism, which simply put, is discrimination based on race or skin color. Just being White is enough.

In order to employ “tactic[s] of shame avoidance, one must have some sense that investing in [these] strategies is worthwhile – that shame is so painful so deleterious to the self that it must be avoided.” It is not always an overt decision, and can be a subconscious attempt to avoid the feeling of shame.

The psychoanalyst Leon Wurmer explained that one way of dealing with shame, whether personal, familial or societal, is to keep the event a secret. “Such bypassed shame is dealt with by silence or threats of possible revealers or exposers – whistler blowers. Examples may include Jewish gold hidden in Swiss banks; the way a society treats it’s minorities or even gender issues. It can be shameful to acknowledge social shame.” Social shame that is not discussed can neither be worked through nor repaired.

In his discussion of shame and guilt, Darwin stated that shame is raised not by one's sense of guilt, but, rather, by "the thought that others think or know us to be guilty."

Some cultures have “various rituals for the repair of shame,” also called Shame Reparation. In essence, the call for financial reparations for slavery from American taxpayers is an attempt to do that. Congressman Dennis Kucinich favors them, while in 2004 Barack Obama was noncommittal, but said he “felt slavery had left stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated.”

Obama has made his views in this area clear. When he gave his speech in Philadelphia this was his take on the Declaration of Independence: “…The document they produced was eventually signed, but ultimately unfinished.  It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery.”

While Obama’s views on “slave reparations” aren’t clear at this point, it must be noted that not only are the members of his erstwhile church staunch supporters of “slave reparations,” but he has been involved with a number of people, including former Chicago Alderman Dorothy Jean Wright Tillman “who led an effort by the Chicago City Council to demand reparations for slavery.” This is important, as one often associates with those who hold the same views.

Which brings me to the subject at hand.

According to Fox News, Obama recently told a group of Florida donors that “Republicans will try to make voters afraid of him, and suggested they would use his race to scare up votes for John McCain…They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?..”

“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards.” Shown what cards? Obama and his supporters are the ones who continually make race an issue. He is the one who has played the Race Card. There is an assumption being made that because Conservatives are generally perceived to be White, they will eschew someone who is not. That couldn’t be further from the truth: what Conservatives want or don’t want has nothing to do with color  - it has everything to do with ideology and what they believe he will do if he wins the presidency.

Its clear Obama is Black. And, it’s clearly not something that can be ignored. In fact, it’s something to be celebrated, because to a certain degree, it shows how far the nation has grown since the days of Jim Crow laws. But, unlike what he and his supporters are implying, it’s not the basis of the Right’s dislike or distrust of him. That is something he’s done all on his own – and it has nothing to do with color or race.

It has to do with the fact that on more than one occasion he proudly presented information that was found to be untrue. The fact that he lacks experience; even in the job he was elected to do. And, the fact that a number of his stances and associates have been found to be questionable. That’s why people are saying things.

And, it is the presidential race, where the big boys play. Things will be said, he will be questioned. Is this not to happen because he is Black? The questioning of issues, of experience and his associates are part of the normal course of an election, particularly a presidential election, and have nothing whatsoever to do with color, although Obama and his supporters continually try to make it so.

Obama and his supporters repeatedly brought up the issue of race during the primaries. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell stated, “some white voters just wouldn’t support Obama because he’s black. Another supporter, Geraldine Ferraro, said Obama was seeing such success because of his race.”

To some degree, I think she was correct. The hard cold facts are, had Obama been a White man, it’s doubtful he would ever have gotten as far as he has. It’s highly doubtful that any White person, with minimal experience and a far left agenda would have achieved his degree of success. Shelby Steele, the author of White Shame said, “"Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance… Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin."

Obama and his supporters have wisely preyed upon one of America’s not so secret shames. The shame, never to heal because people won’t let it. The shame of some whites having had slaves. Of African Americans being treated as less than. And, the victimization which has subsequently allowed many people of color to benefit from it’s legacy, through various programs including Affirmative Action programs, which give precedence to just about anyone other than a white male, regardless of financial need. As if, somehow, these things would expiate our supposed sins. But, they won’t. Nothing tangible will absolve those who feel shame because they feel their race were victims, or their race was the perpetrators of the crimes. The penance or compensation will never be enough. Not even voting in a Black man for president would be enough.

That’s because shame is an internal feeling, it’s about us, not our actions. According to Eve Sedgwick, guilt is a bad feeling attached to what one does, shame is a bad feeling attaching to what one is. Remember, shame doesn’t have to be “rooted in personal wrong doing or blame.” People can feel shame for actions they were neither involved in nor responsible for. It’s not the forgiveness of others, which absolves us of shame, it’s something we must do ourselves. Forgive ourselves.

Axel Honneth looks at shame in an additional way: “shame is the psychological bedrock of political action, and the goal of political struggles is the elimination of shame.” He sees shame as the "missing psychological link" which, due to poverty or social repression, can motivate people to engage in political struggle. In other words, among other things, shame explains how people can be moved to action.

Shame can bring a person, group or society to the realization that it is dependent on the “recognition of others for its own sense of self.”  The perceived view of the self is often the impetus “to identify specific others as the source of oppression, and, hence, as the target of political struggle.”

Consequently, the playing of the Race Card. The implication that issues with Obama are based upon race. It taps into not only the White shame, but also the Black shame and anger. There have already been rumblings that if Obama is not elected, there will be race riots like those of the past.

The issue of Obama’s race is one people should not be afraid to broach. He is Black. If it is an issue, it needs to be openly discussed. Some feel part of his agenda is a “Black” agenda. If that is so, there needs to be open discourse on the issue. To deny something that is obvious, his color, is foolish. However, despite what Obama or his supporters seem to want to imply, I do not believe it is correct to insinuate that issues regarding Obama are based upon his race. Nor is it correct to try to shame people into voting for him, which playing the Race Card does. Race is not a good reason to elect the President of the United States, nor is it a good reason not to.

“Instead of fantasizing about the end of shame, Sedgwick proposes that shame be acknowledged, embraced, and put to transformative political use. In this framework, the goal is not the end of shame. The goal is the refiguration of shame as ‘a near inexhaustible source of transformational energy,’ and its creative deployment in political struggles. “

Speaking of…our freedoms. People, we had better start paying closer attention to what is going on. We speak of the Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech, but the fact is, we have already lost it to a certain degree, under the guise of Political Correctness, Human Rights and Hate Laws. A new McCarthyism is alive and well in one of our closest neighbors, Canada, and should be more than a cautionary tale – it should be call to arms.

I’m sure most are aware of Canada’s infamous Human Rights Commission, who, for the crime of saying one thinks homosexuality is against God’s Law, or for drawing a link between Islam and terrorism, can fine, and ensure that an author is never published or able to write or be read in Canada again. You don’t even have to live in Canada, or the piece have originated in Canada, as has been shown by the current case of Mark Steyn. After excerpts of his book, America Alone, were published in a Canadian magazine, he was accused of “subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt” and being “flagrantly Islamophobic.” If the writing, not even the author, appears in Canada, it’s fair game for the CHRC.

If found guilty by the CHRC Tribunal, which he surely will be, as they have a 100% conviction rate, among other things, Steyn will no longer be able to write anything that is published or heard in Canada. While the determination has yet to made on what turned out to be a kangaroo court, Steyn has commented, “I’m done in Canada.” Nor will the magazine, Maclean’s, who excerpted his book and published his column, be allowed to publish it, or any other articles, which may be ”likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

Note the word “likely.” They may as well have used the word “might.” No one has to prove the writings or words inspired any crime, any assault – or that they are even the genesis of a “hate crime.” Just that perhaps, sometime in the future “maybe” they would. That something that person wrote or said “may” make another look disparagingly at the group or person in question.

In his book, Steyn eloquently discusses the challenges and issues facing the West by Islamic fundamentalism. Many of his columns addressed the same issues.

Rev. Scott Boisoin, a Canandian, was convicted last November by the CHRC because he sent a letter to the editor of a local newspaper critical of the active homosexual agenda. “…this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage…Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate. ”

Just recently the “remedy” was ordered: Boisoin, a pastor, and his organization, The Concerned Christian Organization, have been banned for life to speak or publish “in the newspapers, by email, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.. they … are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund [the complainant] or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks…[regarding] homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin [sic] and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.,” by the quasi-judicial group, the CHRC.

Boisoin and his group, jointly and severally, must also pay a $5,000 fine to the complainant and $2,000 to the “judge” for her time. Additionally, while he has said he will not do it, Boisoin and his group have been ordered to write a public apology to the complainant, and publish it in the same newspaper that published his letter to the editor.

The funny thing about this is, according to the CHRC, there was “no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward.”

Get that? No actual victim. So the complainant, who alleges he is not gay, and no harm was actually done to him, was compensated, as was the “judge,” a divorce attorney, who laid down the punishment. Curiously, a prominent gay group, and a gay magazine, while not supportive of Boisoin’s sentiments, have both supported his right to express them. Certainly, if anyone would have been a “victim” of Boisoin’s letter, it would have been someone actually in the homosexual community.

 Notice also, no disparaging remarks about homosexuals. That means no disapproval, no reproach, nothing critical or, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, to not “speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way.” The means, Boisoin cannot even read verses from the Bible, which speak against homosexuality.

The CHRCs were established in the 1970s to initially address discrimination in housing and employment. They soon began using their authority, however, “to silence citizens who declined to embrace the new vision of Canada … by then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: multicultural and pacifist; blindly tolerant; anti-tradition, anti-family and anti-life.”

But, don’t get this wrong – this isn’t about Canada, sexual preference, or religion, or even the people who have been hauled in front of this egregious tribunal. This is about free speech. The right to express one’s thoughts and opinions, even if they go against the grain. Or, “hurts someone feelings.”

This is about the United States, and what is, and has been happening here. While we don’t yet have anything like the CHRC, we have the government and our “anti-intimidation laws”, now in place in 47 states, the courts, and our educational monitors. And, we are hobbled with political correctness – to the point where one cannot tell the truth and must couch it in ambiguities, or fear public or judicial reprisal. 

Generally, it is conservatives who are targeted.

The people, who are concerned about the many problems illegal immigration brings, and want secure borders, are considered racist. Somehow the concerns about the one are translated into a bias against all Latinos.

 Those who question the current global warming hysteria, and “refuse to join the fight,” have been likened to Hitler or to Josef Fritzl in Austria, who locked his daughter and her children in a cellar for 24 years. To be skeptical “about the conventional wisdom on climate change is akin to the monstrous crime committed by Fritzl.” Those who question the veracity of global warming have also been likened to Holocaust Deniers.

The people who fear the encroaching Islamic jihad are called Islamophobic. Those who speak about or discuss the negative and frightening aspects of Islam are accused of religious intolerance, or xenophobia, and are accused of hating all Muslims and all of Arab descent. One must question why Muslims are so sensitive to concerns regarding their beliefs. Christians’ beliefs are questioned and bashed all the time. “It is illogical for a member of a religion to fear the articulation of other beliefs if he is certain of its truth.”

Portions of the Bible are considered by many to be hate speech. Christians are considered to be purveyors of hatred and intolerance if they follow their beliefs. They are often considered extremists and fundamentalists if they believe and follow their scriptures. Historical information becomes a hate issue, rather than what it is – historical fact or detail.

A recent report to congress, the U.S. State Department “Office of Global Anti-Semitism, said “the New Testament record that the Jews had Christ crucified is ‘classical anti-semitism.’ This edict makes millions of bible-believing Christians into ‘anti-semites – potential ‘hate criminals.’ Anti-semitisim is…a hate crime in Canada, Australia, and most European countries, punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment.” The one question one must ask, is why is it anti-Semitism to record historical facts?

In some countries, to deny the Holocaust is a crime, punishable by fines and imprisonment. Frankly, while I cannot understand how one could deny that it took place in the face of masses of historical data and substantiation, it should not be a crime to deny a historical event or evidence.

To think a certain way, and to publicize those thoughts, when not censured due to political correctness, and the fear that it might incite violence, “hurt someone’s feelings” or put someone in a bad light, even if justified, has become a crime. Such nonsense is being bolstered by the judicial system; with the effect that rational dialogue on a number of issues is being quashed.

The courts are being used more effectively than ever before to stifle the dissemination of thought and public discourse on issues. While this is not specifically about Islam, “lawfare,” a legal jihad, which is being waged, is a prime example. The practice is predatory, often without a serious expectation of winning, but used as a means to “intimidate and bankrupt defendants.” It is a method, using the Western democratic court systems to “suppress freedom of expression [and] abolish public discourse critical of Islam…”

“Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of ‘libel tourism’ that has resulted in foreign judgments against European and now American authors mandating the destruction of American-authored literary material.”

Rather than face lengthy and expensive litigation, regardless of the merit of the works, “most authors and publishers targeted have issued apologies and retractions, while some have paid fines…” The recent case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil, published in the United States, who alleged financial ties between wealthy Saudis and terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, is a good example.

Ehrenfeld, an anti-terrorism analyst and director of the American Center for Democracy, was sued in a UK court, because something like 23 copies of her book were sold online by Amazon. com to people who live in the UK. This is despite the fact neither she nor her accuser lives in the UK. “Ehrenfeld lost on default and was ordered to pay heavy fines, apologize, and destroy her books -- all of which she has refused to do.” Instead, she counter-sued in a New York State court in an attempt to have the UK judgment declared unenforceable in the United States.

She lost the case because the NY court ruled that it “lacked jurisdiction over the Saudi resident who, the court said, did not have sufficient connections to the state.” Afterwards, the Association of American Publishers criticized the ruling “as a blow to intellectual freedom and ‘a deep disappointment for publishers and other First Amendment advocates.’"

When Cambridge Press was threatened with a lawsuit for publishing Alms for Jihad by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, the “publisher immediately capitulated, offered a public apology…pulped the unsold copies of the book, and took it out of print.”

There is a real danger in censuring thought and the verbal or written expression of it. We are quickly moving into an Orwellian society. What many in the United States and other Western nations don’t seem to understand yet, when some ideas are censured, others will surely follow. This excludes those who are waging jihad against us, because they clearly understand that. It is their purpose to quash anything that may be perceived as derogatory.

Basically, what has already happened in Europe, Australia and Canada (all which used to have the freedom to express one’s thoughts and ideas), is happening here in the United States. To think a certain way, and to express those thoughts, are fast becoming crimes – or dangerous. Making a statement of fact, if it wounds someone’s sensibilities, can be cause to be fired, fined, and perhaps even jailed. In some cases, people sometimes actually fear for their lives due to community response.

Take, for example, what happened to a teacher several years ago, when, during a public forum, he explained that at his school, it was the male black teenage boys who were causing the bulk of the problems. The audience was aghast, and he was promptly accused of racism. He lost his job, and the media had a field day with him. Ultimately, he was vindicated, but the whole event made one thing clear – even if it was the truth, substantiated by facts, making such a statement could be dangerous and have severe consequences.

It wasn’t politically correct to state, or even imply, that one group was causing problems over another, even if it was true. Rather than being a statement of fact, which it was, it was seen as racist. Which is what has happened with illegal immigration. Rather than recognizing that people are concerned about illegal immigration, which coincidentally happens to be primarily from Mexico, it becomes an indictment of all Latinos. That’s like assuming because a women fears rape, she hates all men. An equally absurd conclusion.

Public opinion isn’t always right. It wasn’t right when people thought African Americans were less than human. It wasn’t right when people thought the earth was flat. Just because a segment of the population, including much of the media, thinks certain things shouldn’t be said because they may somehow physiologically injure someone else, doesn’t make it right. Just because many are convinced of the veracity of global warming, doesn’t make it right. And, just because the courts have decreed someone’s feelings might be hurt by saying something, doesn’t make it right. The intolerance we are now seeing towards “alternative and dissident opinions betrays the powerful anti-democratic impulse” now prevalent in our society.

What is right, however, is to uphold and defend our Constitutionally protected First Amendment right of Free Speech. The expression of our thoughts. Our country was founded on controversy. We broke from the subservience of European thought and edicts when we became a free nation. If we don’t fight for this right on every front, for the right to express our thoughts, we will lose it. It will slip away, unnoticed by many until it’s too late – and the expressions of our thoughts, our words, and our every deed, will be governed by whoever is in power.

There is one truth people must understand - for the most part, Muslims’ religious beliefs and political ideology are inextricably intertwined as they come from the same source – the Qur’an, the edicts of Allah, through their prophet Muhammad. One can no more separate their religious beliefs from their political ideology than you can separate a person from their skin color. While a person’s skin color doesn’t define what they become, it is part of who they are. To make a religious analogy: it would be like trying to separate Jesus from Christianity.

One caution: when discussing Islam with Muslims – or even other groups or people - comparisons to Christianity or Judaism are often made, or statements like, “this is in all religions.” This is a diversion. Stick to the facts of Islam. When discussing one’s faith, it is not necessary to compare it to other beliefs. The facts of that particular belief should be sufficient.

This “Cheat Sheet” is an attempt to define some important terms and concepts. Without some basic knowledge, one cannot hope to understand Muslims or what they believe. But, the topic is complex. My attempt is merely to give a base from which you can do further study. Otherwise, the explanations, should at least give a basic knowledge of what has become an important topic.

It has also become longer than I anticipated. As I said, the topic is complex.

Allah - God. Muslims say it is the same god of the Christians and Jews. However, this is a debate in which I would not enter unless or until you are thoroughly versed in the God of the Christians and the Jews, as well as the god of Islam, through their texts.

Apostate – [Islam] Defined as a Muslim who has rejected Islam by word or deed, or one who does not adhere to all aspects of the Qur’an and it’s edicts.

Caliph, calif or khalif - The head of state's position (Caliph), and is regarded as a successor of Muhammad, and is always male.

Cleric [Muslim] - may be likened to a priest or minister

Dhimma - treaty of protection granted to a certain population after conquest. Generally granted to “People of the Book” (Followers of the Holy Books) which historically have been Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. As long as Muslim rulers permit, their lives and property are exempt from jihad. However, should dhimmis violate any conditions of the dhimma, or fail to show proper deference to Muslims, the jihad will continue.

Dhimmi - are conquered people who fall under the dhimma, or treaty of protection. The dhimmi are generally safe, as long as they are economically useful to the Islamic state. Dhimmi are non-Muslims who have less rights than Muslims – which all non-Muslims do in Islamic states or under Islamic law. There are many restrictions on dhimmis, including the building of churches, overt expressions of their faith, even on religious holidays, or to assist an unbeliever in any fashion against a Muslim. Dhimmis must also show proper deference to Muslims. In some ways, one could compare them to indentured servants, with the difference that a dhimmi can never pay off his debt, or be released from bondage.

A noted Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, explained to an American audience, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”

It is now a term often used to connote non-Muslims, by non-Muslims and is sometimes used interchangeably with kafir. The difference being that dhimmis pay a tribute to Muslims, whereas kafir are simply infidels.

Faqih - Jurist. One who is an expert in Islamic law

Fitna - civil war

Hadith, ahadith (pl) or al-hadith - Writings based upon oral tradition about the life, statements, actions or views of Muhammad. They are often considered an important adjunct to the Qur’an. Not only is the narrative important, but also the chain of narrators, since the chain of narrators is the only way to even attempt to ascertain their veracity. During the 8^th and 9^th centuries they were evaluated and written down, and are still referred to in matters of history and Islamic law.

There are a number of categories of hadith: authentic (sahih); good (hasan); weak (da if); fabricated (mawdu); ignored or rejected (munkar). Only the first two, sahih and hasan, are considered reliable and are also considered acceptable for use in Islamic legal discussion.

With the exception of Hadith Qudsi, hadith are not believed to be the word of God like the Qur’an. The Hadith Qudsi are exceptions in that they are believed to communicate divine revelations given to Muhammad, but are not included in the Qur’an. Unlike the Qur’an, however, the words are believed to be Muhammad’s, although the ‘thoughts’ divine. All hadith are ranked lower than the Qur’an.

While not used to interpret the Qur’an in it’s entirety, the hadith are often used to assist in the interpretation of parts of it, which may be confusing or not clear. They are also used to support certain views.

The Sunni, the Shi’a and the Ibadi do not all accept the same hadith, or consider them trusted. It may also vary from scholar to scholar which hadith are considered valid.

Ibadi [Muslims] - are distinct from the Shi’a and Sunni. It is believed to be one of the earliest forms of Islam, and is said to have been founded less than 50 years after the death of Muhammad. It is the dominant form of Islam in only one Muslim country, Oman. There are also Ibadis in Algeria and Libya.

Imam - often the leader of a mosque and/or community. He leads the prayer and is the one Muslims most often turn to for spiritual guidance, as well as guidance for other issues. He is considered the lawful temporal leader of the Islamic community, and often claims descendency from Muhammad. An imam can also be any one of the founders of the four schools of law and theology, or an authoritative scholar who founds a school of law or theology.

Infidel - literally, one without faith. In the context of Islam, it connotes anyone who is not a believer, not a Muslim. However, Muslims generally use the term kafir to connote a non-believer.

Isnad - the list of citations for narrators or transmitters going back to the original narrator. Used to determine the authenticity of the hadith. The more trustworthy the narrators, the more reliable the hadith, and the more highly prized and categorized.

Jizya - a special tax imposed on non-Muslim citizens. In return, they are permitted to practice their faith, and are entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression. The Qur’an states what the payment of the jizya should be. “It is the most conspicuous means by which the Muslim exploit the dhimmi. But the jizya is not merely economic in its function; it exists also to humiliate the dhimmi and impress on him the superiority of Islam.”

Jihad - is literally translated as "struggle." It does not actually mean "holy war." Many will try to explain it as an inner struggle, a spiritual struggle, which to a certain degree it is. Muslims are commanded to struggle against laziness, especially laziness in prayer, and other inner struggles.

However, a Muslim is also commanded to struggle against the infidel. Every Muslim must wage jihad: it is their duty and obligation from Allah, and cannot be ignored nor evaded. According to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan Al-Banna, Muslims must take up arms against unbelievers. He said, “The verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting." This was said by him in 1928, and parrots what is written in both the Qur’an and the sunnah. So, the concept of physical jihad, of martyrdom, is not a new one.

Jihad is a wide concept, which includes every effort involved in both the preparation and execution of war, such as funding it.  While it is always true to describe “fighting in the way of Allah” as jihad, “it can also refer to other aspects of armed jihad or to peaceful jihad.”

However, the use of the word in the Qur’an and hadith, and throughout the more than 1300 years of Muslim history, has clearly imbued the word jihad with a meaning of struggle, usually through military means, to expand the domain of Islam. Almost all Muslims understand that “warfare” (qital, qatala) is the essential meaning of the word.

It is clear that the Muslims are commanded to struggle not only against their inner issues, but also struggle in physical combat against the infidel and spread Islam.

Kafir - is the Muslim term for infidel, a non-believer, or one not of the Muslim faith.

Kitman  - is another important concept to understand. It is similar to taqiyya, but rather than “deliberate dissimilation,” means to tell only part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission. A good example is when a Muslim asserts that jihad means “a spiritual struggle,” and neglects to add that this definition is recent in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing kitman. When he gives the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” as an example, and doesn’t add, that this is a “weak” hadith (which all Muslims know), and is regarded by the most respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing kitman. So, while he has not actually lied, he has not told the truth. (Fitzgerald: Islam for Infidels, Part One)

The Hijra, Hijrah or withdrawal, is the migration of Muhammad and his followers to the city of Medina in 622 AD. The year of the Hijra is considered to be more significant than the year of Muhammad's birth or death or that of the first Quranic revelation because above all, Islam is a political-military enterprise. The years of the Islamic calendar (which is based upon lunar months) are designated in English "AH" or "After Hijra."

Mahdi or al-Mahdi - is "the rightly-guided one" who, according the hadiths, will come before the end of time to make the entire world Muslim, and therefore, a perfect world. There is no mention of him in the Qur’an, but there are numerous hadith on the Mahdi.

The advent of the Mahdi is not universally accepted in Islam and among those that do accept the concept, there are basic differences among different sects of Muslims about the timing and nature of his advent and guidance. The Shia believe he has already been here, and will return from hiding The Sunnis believe he has yet to emerge.

Mosque - Muslim house of worship

Muhaddith or muhaddithin (pl) - one who intimately knows and narrates hadiths, the chains of their narration and the original and famous narrators.

Mujahid, mujahedeen (pl), mujahideen (pl), mujahidin (pl) or mujaheddin (pl) – literally, one who struggles, and comes from the same Arabic root as jihad. Documented since 1958 in English, the word has meant, "one who fights in a jihad.” In modern usage, it has become a synonym for "Muslim guerilla insurgent.” Even in Arabic, the term has taken on meanings that are “specifically religious, or specifically military or paramilitary, or both.”

In the late 20th and early 21st century, the term mujahideen became the term for various armed fighters who “subscribe to militant Islamic ideologies and identify themselves as mujahideen, although there is not always an explicit ‘holy’ or ‘warrior’ meaning of the word.” The best-known mujahideen are various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups. However, in addition to Afghanistan, mujahideen have fought, and fight, in Thailand, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, Kashmir, the Philippines, Myanmar (Burma) and Somalia.

Mujahid, mujahedeen (pl), mujahideen (pl), mujahidin (pl) or mujaheddin (pl) – literally, one who struggles, and comes from the same Arabic root as jihad. Documented since 1958 in English, the word has meant, "one who fights in a jihad.” In modern usage, it has become a synonym for "Muslim guerilla insurgent.” Even in Arabic, the term has taken on meanings that are “specifically religious, or specifically military or paramilitary, or both.”

In the late 20th and early 21st century, the term mujahideen became the term for various armed fighters who “subscribe to militant Islamic ideologies and identify themselves as mujahideen, although there is not always an explicit ‘holy’ or ‘warrior’ meaning of the word.” The best-known mujahideen are various loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups. However, in addition to Afghanistan, mujahideen have fought, and fight, in Thailand, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq, Kashmir, the Philippines, Myanmar (Burma) and Somalia.

naskh or al-naskh wa al-mansukh or (the abrogating and the abrogated). This is an important concept, which is often confusing to non-Muslims. The Qur’an itself presents the principle of abrogation, which instructs that “verses revealed later in Muhammad's career can cancel and replace earlier ones they may contradict.” Therefore, “passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca.”

qital, qatala - Warfare

Qur’an, Koran, Quran or Alcoran is Islam’s holy book and is their central religious text. According to Islamic teaching, the Qur’an came down as a series of revelations from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. As he was illiterate, Muhammad dictated his revelations to his followers, who memorized what he said. Later, they wrote what he said down on whatever they could find. After Muhammad’s death, these fragments were complied into book form. The Qur’an is about the size of the Christian New Testament and is comprised of 114 suras.

“Orthodox Islam does not accept that a rendering of the Quran into another language is a "translation" in the way that, say, the King James Bible is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. A point often made by Islamic apologists to defang criticism is that only Arabic readers may understand the Quran. But Arabic is a language like any other and fully capable of translation. Indeed, most Muslims are not Arabic readers.” (Islam 101)

Muslims say, that unlike the Bible, the Qur’an is uncorrupted, that they have had the exact same Qur’an all over the world, and it is Muhammad’s unedited and exact words. However, Osman (the 3^rd Caliph) burned 26 Qur’ans, including Muhammad’s. So, it appears there were different versions of the Qur’an. Osman then ordered 4 people to write a new one, which is called Osman’s Qur’an and is kept in a museum in Istanbul. It is not punctuated, which makes it different than the ones the Muslims now read, since one cannot read Arabic without punctuation.

Ramadan is a Muslim religious observance during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which is the month in which it is believed the Qur’an began to be revealed. During this time Muslims fast and pray and read the Qur’an. They are to read the whole Qur’an again during this period.

Salafism is a generic term, depicting a Sunni school of thought that takes the devout ancestors (Salaf) of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models. Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are Muhammad's companions, and the two succeeding generations after them as examples of how Islam should be practiced.

Sira - Biographies of Muhammad

Shi’a or Shiites (pl) [Muslims] believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, are the legitimate successors of Muhammad. In 931 AD,  the Twelfth Imam disappeared. It was not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.

Shar’ia or sharia  is Islamic religious law in which both the private and public life are regulated. There is no separation between the political and religious. It also includes politics, finance, business, family, social issues and private issues such as marriage, sexuality and even hygiene. It encompasses all aspects of Muslims’ lives. “While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms - an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. - whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.”

Sunnah - Details about the Prophet Muhammad: how he lived, what he did, his non-Quranic utterances and his personal habits. They are considered to be indispensable knowledge for any faithful Muslim. The Sunnah is as binding upon a Muslim as is the Qur’an.”… the relation between the Qur’an and Sunnah is that of the soul and the body. In other words, the soul or the spirit of the Qur’an is given, in the Sunnah of the Prophet …Both go together to complete the … edifice of Islam. Take away any one of them, and the whole structure falls apart.” (Difference Between Hadith and Sunnah)  

Sunni –[Muslims] believe that the first four caliphs--Muhammad's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Surah or sura - A sura may be likened to a chapter.

Taqiyya or taqiyyah - religiously sanctioned doctrine of deception. This is a critical concept to understand when attempting to understand Muslims and what they say. Taqiyya is religiously sanctioned “deliberate dissimulation” about religious matters which may be used to protect Islam and it’s believers. An example would be a Muslim stating  “there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Quranic verse -- “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later…verses.”

Therefore, when a Muslim states they are tolerant of persons with other religious beliefs, for example, they tend to ignore the Quranic edicts to either bring them under submission or kill them.

The Five Pillars of Islam are the most basic tenets of the religion.

1. Faith in the oneness of Allah and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (indicated by the declaration [the Shahadah] that, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah").

2. Keeping of the five scheduled daily prayers

3. Almsgiving

4. Fasting

5. Pilgrimage to Mecca for those who are able.

The five pillars don’t really explain much about Islam, or what a Muslim is supposed to believe or how he should act. The second through fifth pillars are shared by many religions. The finality of the prophethood of Muhammad, however, is unique to Islam. One cannot understand Islam and what it means to be a Muslim, without understanding Muhammad and the revelations given through him by Allah, which make up the Qur’an. (thanks to Islam 101)

Ulema or Ulama (pl) -  Muslim scholars trained in Islam and Islamic law.

Ummah - Muslim communities

The topic is difficult to write about, abhorrent to read about. And, I warn you; some of it may shock and disgust you. If you are easily offended, perhaps you should read no further. But, note that the offense isn’t mine, but rather of those who have most foully betrayed the hospitality offered them. My offense is merely in the relating of information and statements from perpetrators of the vile crime of sexual assault – perpetrated not only against their own kind, but most often against those in the country they have chosen to emigrate to.

There is something else that must be considered. In most of Europe, sex has been looked at differently than it is in the Untied States – except for predominantly Catholic countries or areas, such as Italy. In Europe, consensual sex has often been looked as just another part of life – part of a relationship. Unless there are religious considerations, pre-marital sex is common, and is looked at as just another part of the dating world, or a relationship. For the most part, it as looked at as a source of pleasure, rather than commitment. Virginity, as it is looked upon by Christians, is often not a commodity that is considered necessary, or even advantageous. Fidelity among certain groups in Europe is not commonplace. In fact, fidelity amongst younger people is often looked at as an oddity. I know things have changed in the U.S., but these are attitudes, which have been held by many Europeans for a long time. They were that way when I lived there, and were that way long before. Not much has changed in that regard.

But, one should not confuse the different sexual mores as an invitation to unwanted sex. One is consensual, the other is not. And, I reiterate, sexual assault is not about sex – it is about power. It always has been, and always will be. Men will often excuse their behavior, saying it is a biological imperative. Perhaps it once was, thousands of years ago. But, most cultures evolved beyond that point. Regardless of a man’s excuse, regardless of how he felt “she was asking for it,” or they “couldn’t control themselves,” it breaks down to power – they are stronger and decide to take what they like. And have no regard for their victim. She is merely a means to an end.

If there is one set of fundamental functions of rape, civilian or martial, it is to display, communicate, and produce or maintain dominance, which is both enjoyed for its own sake and used for such ulterior ends as exploitation, expulsion, dispersion, murder. Acts of forcible rape, like other instances of torture, communicate dominance by removing our control over what enters or impinges on our bodies. Rape is a cross-cultural language of male domination…” (Rape as a weapon of War)

The genesis of this article was some information I read about Sweden in To the Readers of Little Green Footballs. In little more than one generation, the number of rapes in Sweden has risen approximately 400-500 percent, and sexual assaults involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common. The increase in sexual assaults mirrors the influx of immigrants. As in the U.S., in other countries the increase in rapes is attributed to more being reported. This rationalization does not come even close to explaining what is going on, however. In Sweden, Muslim men of Arab ethnicity dominate the group of rape suspects.

In some countries, the ethnicity or country of origin of perpetrators is not often reported due to what is often considered an informal censorship. In others, frankly, the censorship is not so informal – it is quite blatant and often falls under the purview of “hate speech.” This is due to concerns that one group or another may be discriminated against, although this may not be not commonly known outside the particular country. Specific data, therefore, is often difficult to obtain. Additionally, there are no international standards on how crime statistics should be produced or presented, therefore making international comparisons difficult.

In France, for example, ethnicity-based censuses are banned. According to researcher Farhad Khosrokhavar in his book “Islam in Prisons,” Muslims make up some 70 percent of the prisoners in France. He said, “… complexion, names and religious traditions like prohibition of pork indicate that Muslims constitute an overwhelming majority in prisons.” It is often only through such information that one is able to glean what population is perpetrating what crimes.

In some communities in France, gang rapes of teenage girls and young women have become commonplace. These horrific crimes are called “tournantes” (pass-arounds) or basement plans, as that is often where the crime occurs. The government has initiated training to recognize the special circumstances of domestic violence, including the fact that some women immigrants may face further violence (or death) if sent back to their countries of origin… (Violence Against Women in France)

Such crimes often occur in the areas populated primarily by immigrants, “mostly from France's former colonies.”  According to sociologists and prosecutors, teenage boys “often loosely organized into gangs, prey on neighborhood girls. Many of the boys are raised in closed, traditional families and are hopelessly confused or ignorant about sex; others are simply street toughs. In this world, women enjoy little respect; often girls who appear weak, or wear tight-fitting clothing, or go out unaccompanied by their fathers or brothers, are considered fair game.” While it is not directly stated – because it is illegal in France - it is implicit as to which population this is directed towards.

According to a study from the Swedish National Crime Prevention Council, Brå,

it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Commonalities between the four countries cited include Islamic religion and Arab ethnicity. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second-generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents. (Fjordman: Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden)

Muslims are clear about their take on the issue. A Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after he publicly declared that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric blamed “immodestly dressed women who don’t wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned ‘meat’ that attracts voracious animals.”

This attitude is prevalent among Muslims, as was elucidated by four young men with immigrant backgrounds. One of them, Hamid, a Muslim immigrant, explained their take on the issue. "It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl," he said. "The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fu**** before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries." He said, it was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped by immigrants in Rissne. "It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore….. girl, I mean;" and laughed over his choice of words. "I don't have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fu**** to pieces." (Fjordman: Immigrant Rape Wave in Sweden)

In Sweden, as in a number of other European countries, it is "racist" and therefore illegal to even suggest that certain ethnic or religious groups are worse than others. If one criticizes oppression of women, one must state that all men are equally bad. In a speech in 2002, Swedish politician Gudrun Schyman posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet agreed with her. During a rally in March 2007, a man carried a sign that read, "While Swedish girls are being gang raped by immigrant gangs the SSU is fighting racism." He was arrested and later sentenced by the local court because he "expressed disrespect for a group of people with reference to their national or ethnic background." The court felt free speech had its limits, and he had acted in a provocative manner.

No matter what country one looks at, which Western nation, the number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants, or those born to Muslim immigrants, is exceptionally high. It becomes difficult to view them as random acts. Rather, they are the acts of an invading or conquering army. Conquering armies throughout history have taken and used the women (under Islamic standards, young girls and teenagers also frequently fit into that category), not only as part of the humiliation of the men, but also because they considered them booty, or property, to be used as they saw fit.

It has been done at times of war by the Vikings, the Mongols, the Germans and the Russians during WW2, and all the way up to the Balkans in the 1990s… [their actions] …resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India. In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic…" (Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?)

However, in Islam, it is not only a political ideology, but also part and parcel of their current religious beliefs. This behavior is sanctioned in the Qur’an and explained in the hadiths. It is against Islamic law to rape [Muslim] women, but is encouraged for women captured in battle. So, despite what the Muslim apologists say, the behavior is condoned, and even encouraged by their most holy book and the hadiths.

This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain.  They met their enemy and fought with them.  They defeated them and took them captives.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers.  So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150)

There are several hadith in which Muhammed is asked for his opinion on how women should be raped following their capture. Bukhari 34:432 speaks to the fact that Muhammed told his men it was acceptable to rape them as long as they ejaculated within the women. Female slaves were bought and sold by Muhammad and his Muslims (Ibn Ishaq 693), traded like any other simple commodity. (The Myths of Muhammad)

Because non-Muslims are considered infidels, they are exhorted to either conquer us or destroy us. In Muslim eyes, crimes against infidels do not really constitute crimes. Rather, they are considered following their religious imperative. The actions of the Muslim immigrants in Europe clearly show they feel entitled. If they are viewed as a conquering army, their actions in Western nations not only make sense, but is in full accordance with Islamic law.

From Robert Spencer on rape and jihad,  “It is not understood that Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hands –“

They find Western culture and mores to be offensive. They recognize Islamic law. If they “act, in accordance with the local laws” it is “ only insofar as they do not contradict Islam -- that is only because of darura, the doctrine of necessity -- and that necessity, that darura, is of course only temporary.”

Bernard Lewis, perceived by many as  “the intellectual godfather behind the administration’s decision to invade Iraq,” warned in a lecture that “the Islamic world was now attacking the West using two tactics: terrorism and migration....”

If rape isn’t considered terrorism, I don’t know what is. If the number of Muslim immigrants committing these crimes versus the number of the indigenous population doesn’t say something, I don’t know what does.  If the staggering rise in the number of rapes, which mirror the influx of this population doesn’t say something, I don’t know what does. The fact that Muslims get away with behavior not acceptable from other cultures and religions should speak volumes.

I’ll end this with a statement from Appeasement is not working:

“…the current strategy is not working for us infidels, i.e. APPEASEMENT. But it is working to the benefit of Islam… The invasion by Islam continues. So do we fight it? Or this time surrender? It seems our leaders has chosen to do the latter. But I don't believe the good people of Europe will. There will be a straw that will break the camel's back and when that happens then all hell will break lose. I'm rooting for the infidels.

Speaking of…  Immigration and sexual assault. Of not only women, but also children. This is a topic which is very difficult for me to objective about. And to write about. But, it’s an issue which must be addressed. It has turned out to be broader than I anticipated, so it will be broken into two parts. This is part one of two.

First, let’s be clear about what I’m talking about. Rape - forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. “The legal term rape has traditionally referred to forced vaginal penetration of a woman by a male assailant. Many states have now abandoned this concept in favor of the gender-neutral term sexual assault. The legal definition of criminal sexual assault is any genital, oral, or anal penetration by a part of the accused's body or by an object, using force or without the victim's consent.” (Medem: Medical Library: Definitions of Sexual Assault)

Although the definition of rape was just broadened by the Maryland Court of Appeals to include defining rape if a man ignores a woman's calls to stop, even if she had previously consented to sex (Definition of Rape Widened), this is not what I am referring to. I am speaking to violent sexual assaults.

Rape is not about sex, it is about power. And, regardless of what they say, or the woman feels, the culpability lies solely with the rapist(s), not the victim. This is critical to understand. When it comes to children, they often also feel they are somehow to blame. But, they’re not. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator(s). The issues and motivations regarding rape and child sexual assault may be quite different. But, in all cases, it has to do with power. The power of the assailant(s) and the powerlessness of the victim.

According to author, teacher and profiler Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, PhD  who has researched violent crimes for more than twenty years, “…rapists are typically out of control in their lives. They are frustrated and want to lash out to regain a sense of control of themselves and their lives. They may not be able to control anything else, but they can control their victims.”  (Javno)

Rape is one of the most brutal crimes there are – there is not only the physical assault, there is the mental assault. The victim learns in one fell swoop one of the cruelest truths there are – she is not in control of her body, nor can she control what happens to it. Many feel a sense of guilt, feeling they brought it upon themselves. Without exception, the effects are damaging and long-lasting.

I began this piece intending to focus on immigration and rape within the United States - the number of immigrants and illegal aliens linked to it. In recent years there have been a number of reports on this issue. Obviously, not enough though.

However, as I began researching, the truth was unavoidable: worldwide, the statistics on rape are staggering, and have risen dramatically, most often in proportion to immigration. Due to political correctness and concerns that one group or another may be discriminated against, however, this is often not reported.

While the increase in the number of rapes is felt by some to be an increase in the reporting of them, in the United States it is estimated that one either one in three or one in four women have been raped. In the Unites States it is believed that less than 30% of sexual assaults are actually reported. Sexual assaults on children under 12 are not included in those figures. If fact, they are not included in the sexual assault figures at all. They fall under the purview of child abuse. So, the figures are actually quite a bit higher, if one factors these into them.

The stories are as numerous as they are appalling. In  Illegal aliens linked to gang-rape wave by Chelsea Schilling, she states, “A wave of illegal-immigrant gang rapes is sweeping the U.S. while public officials and law-enforcement authorities fear drawing the link…”

Schurman-Kauflin said, “It is as if there is a fear that if this is honestly discussed, people will hate all illegal immigrants. So there is silence. … But in being silent about the rapes and murders, it is as if the victims never even existed." While she is speaking about the United States, this phenomenon is occurring worldwide.

Initiated due to her concerns about the issue, and for which she was neither commissioned nor paid (including the subsequent article), Schurman-Kauflin embarked on a one-year in-depth study of 1,500 cases of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes in the U.S. She estimated there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders currently in the United States, with an average of four victims each. The 1,500 offenders studied had a total of 5,999 victims.

 While the offenders were located in 36 states, the majority were in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants: “California had the most offenders, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Florida.” She estimated “93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders come across U.S. borders illegally every day.” Only 2 percent of the offenders in her study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.

Schurman-Kauflin stated, "This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study."

The 1,500 cases reviewed were broken down by child molestations (35 percent); rapes (24 percent); and sexual homicides and serial murders (41 percent).

In 82 percent of the cases, she noted, the victims were known to their attackers. "In those instances, the illegal immigrants typically gained access to the victims after having worked as a day laborer at or near the victims' homes."

The highest number of sex offenders came from Mexico. “El Salvador was the original home to the next highest number. Other countries… included Brazil, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Russia, and Vietnam.”

At this point, I can’t account for the lack of perpetrators from the Middle East in Schurman-Kauflin’s study. Perhaps it is due to the fact that many are here legally, which would not have fallen under the purview of study, although it has been clearly documented that some Middle Eastern individuals have posed as Mexicans to cross the Southern U.S. border. There is compelling evidence, however, of the rise in Muslim sexual assaults directed towards Western women.

In a separate study, Schurman-Kauflin also found terrorists using the identity of different nationalities. “One glaring security problem was Puerto Rico. With birthright citizenship, Puerto Ricans can come to the mainland any time they want. Fraudulent documents are a huge industry there as illegals and terror operatives look to enter the island illegally, obtain fake paperwork, and then simply come to the mainland.” (Recruiting in the West: The L