A 25 year old Irish woman who was savagely attacked by three men with a heavy duty motorcycle chain in France has been released from the hospital.
The woman was attacked in the southern town of Avignon last Saturday as she returned to where she was lodging.
She was hit in the face with the chain and lock, suffering severe injuries to her mouth, cheeks, and nose, according to police. “She is in a state of shock,” they said.
The men ran away after the attack, not stealing anything and leaving the chain behind them. The woman did not know the identity of her attackers.
(Note: The authorities are not disclosing the descriptions of her attackers even though they are still at large.)
Darlene Horton (left) died in the attack, Bernard Hepplewhite (center) was hospitalized for several days with severe abdominal wounds, and Yovel Lewkowski (right) was stabbed but survived.
Authorities and the media blamed the stabbing of six people in London this week on “mental illness,” after initially circulating reports that the Muslim Somali immigrant attacker was “a white chubby man,” and later they insisted on calling him “Norwegian.”
Zak Bulhan went on a rampage in London on Wednesday night which left five people injured and the wife of an American professor dead. Bulhan was likely inspired by the ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al Adnani who calling for potential jihadists to launch stabbing attacks against western “disbelievers.”
Bulhan’s former school friend Rakesh Naidu said that the killer was “a devout Mulism and he would passionately defend it,” and another student from Bulhan’s school said “This is the first time I’ve heard of him having mental health problems.”
Also Bulhan’s neighbor said that his mother “always wore a black full burka,” and Bulhan has also been found to give support online for various Islamic terrorists.
In an MSNBC program recorded yesterday, hosts speak with a group of guests about Donald Trump’s proposals concerning immigration, basing their information and opinions on outdated claims which Trump made in the past rather than on his current modified proposals which are much more workable. A guest claims that Trump’s immigration proposals would “cost as much as $100 billion” while actually basing his projection on vetting every person who would visit the U.S. rather than the suspension of immigration from countries that have been compromised by terrorism.
At the beginning of the clip, old footage (December 2015) is shown of Donald Trump saying the following: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,”but they fail to note that Trump has changed his stance since then.
Then they show a more recent July 21 2016 clip:“We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism, until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place, we don’t want them in our country.”
Following are excerpts from the conversation which ensues:
ARI MELBER (who claims he spoke with over twenty homeland security experts): “There’s been questions about whether this is legal, whether it’s a good idea. We dug in because he is the major party nominee on what it would actually take. … [ Here are ] quotes we got talking to people who are ICE, DHS, border security, they say: ‘impractical, unworkable, impossible, not doable.’”
HOST: “Did anyone tell you it could be done?”
ARI MELBER: “Some people looked at the price estimate, I can show you that there are 189 million entries to the U.S. in a year that are non-immigrant entries [ people who temporarily visit the country with passports ]. So if you take that and you say actually that you want to patrol and vet those people for their beliefs or their religion, you have to start looking at what the top Muslim nations are. … A ballpark figure right now, we spend about $21.5 billion dollars on immigration enforcement. We were told by officials that … it would be up to $100 billion just to set up a kind of global vetting system to look at people’s beliefs.”
[Note: Updated March 7, 2020— Kahn has responded to allegations of supporting Sharia law in the past but made deceptive claims in doing so. See the end of this post for more information.]
Khizr Muazzam Khan, the U.S. Constitution touting Muslim who spoke against Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention has been revealed to be an acknowledged expert on Islamic Sharia Law.
Sharia law dictates that men have the right to beat their wives, punishment for theft is amputation, insulting Muhammad is a crime punishable by death, rape victims need to produce four male witnesses or face adultery charges themselves, and with punishments for other infractions ranging from stonings to floggings to beheadings.
In 1983, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book where he singled out for praise a pro-jihad Muslim jurist named Allah K. Brohi, who was one of the closest advisers to Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement. In the review, Khan spoke admirably of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic law and the right of men to beat their wives. Khan never mentioned having any issues with Brohi’s interpretations of human rights, but instead wrote that Brohi “successfully” explains and argues his points “convincingly.” Khan also concurred in his review that human rights can only be guaranteed through the establishment of Sharia law, saying “There is no such thing as human right in the abstract.”
Brohi was the Pakistani Minister of Law and Religious Affairs at the time, and he restored the enforcement of the full range of Sharia laws to that country. Khan now claims to have immigrated to the U.S. in the 1980’s to “escape Pakistan’s Military Rule,” despite the fact that he spoke very admirably of Brohi in his review back then.
Khan also wrote another academic paper in 1983 entitled “Juristic Classification of Islamic Law,” where he states that the Quran is the “absolute authority,” and that all other juridical works must always be subordinate to Sharia law. His 13-page article was published in the Houston Journal of International Law and has been cited by dozens of Islamic law articles and has also been used in college syllabi for Islamic courses at least until 2013.
The Clinton campaign and establishment media portrait Khan as a “Pakistani-American Lawyer,” but of course they don’t mention Khan being an acknowledged expert on Sharia law.
There is no evidence that Khan has ever recanted his support for the anti-Constitional Sharia law, other than the fact that he waved a pocket constitution around during his speech at the DNC.
_______
NOTE: Khan has given a response to allegations that he has been a Sharia law supporter in the past, but in his response he does not deny what he has written about it but instead gives a vague and misleading description of what Sharia law is, and then states that he “does not stand for any Sharia law because there is no such thing.”
In this video clip from a CNN broadcast, Khan states:
“Sharia Law as we have titled it is no such thing as Sharia Law. These are laws of various Muslim countries which are hodge podge of British laws, French laws, Portuguese Laws. In there, there is tremendous discrimination of genders, which disqualifies them under the Constitution of the United States, cannot be implemented, cannot be brought. How can I be a person that has read this, I preach that I do not stand for any Sharia law because there is no such thing.”
.. In the clip after video of Khan speaking, a host chimes in appearing to reiterate what Khan just said, but while doing so she injects a claim that Khan never actually made in his statement: “.. he doesn’t stand for it, he never has stood for it, he carries around the US Constitution, he abides by the US Constitution.” If Khan didn’t actually write about Sharia law in the past as being a strong supporter, it would have been the first thing he mentioned in his statement.
Sharia Law is already being implemented in Britain where it supersedes English law for Muslims, and many American Muslims support the idea of Sharia Law being implemented in the United States.
