The latest reports of an ISIS instruction sheet giving its followers the “right” to rape non-believing women is being spread throughout the world and justifiably so, but the long record of Jewish Religious hatred and oppression of women as well as little boys and girls is hidden from the public by the Zio media.
The latest outburst of propaganda on ISIS misogyny, issued by the “Middle East Media Research Institute” (MEMRI) Israeli propaganda organization, and featured prominently by Zio-Zucker’s CNN news network, is a classic example of Jewish Supremacist hypocrisy and misdirection.
MEMRI was set up in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a “former” colonel in the Israeli Defense Forces’ Intelligence section, and Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli “political scientist” wife of Jewish Supremacist David Wurmser, the former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney.
In 1996, Wurmser participated in a study that led to the report, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a paper prepared for the Israeli government which mapped out the neocon conspiracy to get America to wage war on behalf of Israeli against Iraq, Iran and Syria.
In other words, this MEMRI organization is a blatantly biased and Zio-fanatic controlled Jewish Supremacist propaganda organization, which has most likely direct links to the Israeli intelligence services.
Despite this, the Jewish Supremacist-controlled Jeff Zucker CNN, in quoting MEMRI, called it an “independent Washington-based nonprofit” (instead of the obvious propaganda organization that it is) and ran a long piece on how misogynist the Islamist ISIS is.
Quoting MEMRI, the CNN report detailed a leaflet allegedly distributed by ISIS in the Iraqi town of Mosul, in which it quoted a number of passages from the Koran which placed women at a subservient, even slave level, to men and allowed for sexual relations with prepubescent girls.
The point of the MEMRI/CNN article is, of course, to incite the rest of the world against ISIS so that the chances of America and other nations coming once again to Israel’s aid is increased—because, they will want to say ‘something must be done about these radical Muslim women-haters.’
The truth is that there are some pretty radical anti-female utterances in the Koran—and the Jewish propaganda machine has made sure that everyone gets to hear about them.
However, the reality is that Judaism, and many parts of the bible’s Old Testament, are equally, if not even more misogynic than the Koran—but giving publicity to this does not serve the Jewish Supremacist agenda of inciting support for Israel against the Arab world, so CNN will not carry any articles on Jewish and Old Testament hatred of women.
For example, you will never read of these examples of Jewish religious hatred of women:
The Orthodox Jewish Morning Prayer, recited by all orthodox Jewish men ever morning of their lives, contains the following sentences:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,
who did not make me a Gentile,
who did not make me a Slave,
who did not make me a Woman.
Many Jewish Supremacists, embarrassed after this prayer became known outside Jewish circles, have tried to make excuses for it, but of course the comparison between Gentiles, slaves and women, tells the reader all one needs to know about how Judaism views all three of those groups.
This is however only scratching the surface of Judaic hatred of women.
As detailed by the anti-Zionist Jewish scholar Dr. Israel Shahak, anti-female sentiment is “rooted in Jewish religious law.”
According to Jewish religious law, both non-Jews and Jewish women cannot validly testify in rabbinical courts. True, Jewish women are permitted to testify in a few strictly limited matters considered “female affairs.” If a case involves “a major judicial effort,” however, a Jewish woman’s testimony is perforce invalid, because “all women are lazy by nature.”
But even in cases not involving a “major judicial effort” when Jewish women can testify, a problem appears when the testimony of a Jewish woman is contradicted by the testimony of a Jewish man. Jewish religious law solves this problem by the formula that “a testimony of 100 Jewish women is equivalent to a testimony of a single Jewish man.”
Dr. Shahak goes on to reveal how Judaism regards all non-Jewish females as whores:
The second example concerns the definition of the term “harlot” in Jewish religious law. “We have learned by tradition that the term ‘harlot’ as designated in the Torah means any woman who is not a daughter of Israel (i.e., not born Jewish), or a daughter of Israel who has had intercourse with a man she is forbidden to marry” (Maimonides, The Book of Holiness, Forbidden Intercourse, Chapter XVIII, Law 1, translated in Yale University Judaica series).
According to this racist definition, all women who happen to have been born non-Jewish are automatically considered to be “harlots.” On the basis of this definition every female converted to Judaism is still considered by Jewish religious law to be a “harlot”—and as such forbidden to marry a Jewish “priest” (i.e., a supposed descendant from the Biblical “Aaron the priest”).
As Dr. Shahak points out, it is easy to imagine what the Jews would have said if any religion or movement branded all Jewish women as “harlots” and maintained that they remain “harlots” forever only because they were born Jewish.
In the Talmud, the hatred of women runs very deep, and in particular, shows that the MEMRI-ISIS quotes about the sexual use of prepubescent girls is common to both Judaism and Islam—although, of course, MEMRI fails to mention this:
For example, second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia in the Talmud—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three. He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” (Yebamoth 60b, p. 402). Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
Rabbi ben Yohai is celebrated to this day with an annual ceremony in his hometown of Meron, Israel, where tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” (Sanhedrin 69b.) Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (Sanhedrin 55a.)
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.)
The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (Sanhedrin 55b). The Talmud therefore teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday—and that she could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin 55b).
A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . .(Yebamoth. 57b).
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:
There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (Yebamoth 60b).
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12½, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile)—a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (Sanhedrin 76b). This passage says: “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
This Judaic hatred is carried through into the Old Testament as well:
Genesis 3:16, has God telling women that men will always rule over women:
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Exodus 20:17 tells women that they are men’s’ property:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Exodus 21:7 rules that daughters can be bought and sold:
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that a raped daughter can be sold to her rapist:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 rules that non-virgin brides deserve death:
“If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.”
Numbers 31:17-18 states that women, but only virgins, are to be taken as spoils of war:
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
Numbers 30:14-16 rules that a woman’s promise is binding only if her father or husband agrees:
“A woman’s vow is meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.”
The accusation is often heard that Muslim women are oppressed because they are forced to cover up in hijabs or head-coverings: but in fact, this command is also contained in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 says;
“For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”
From all of the above, it can be seen that active discrimination against women is not something exclusive to radical Islam, but can be found in Judaism and the Old Testament as well.
However, the MEMRI/Zucker-CNN Jewish Supremacist propaganda machine will only give publicity to anti-female remarks made by Muslims!
The hypocrisy is staggering, but understandable if one bears in mind the purpose behind this deliberate misdirection: it is being done to incite Westerners against the enemies of Israel, and for no other reason.
For if it was being done to promote female equality or liberation, then MEMRI and Zucker-CNN would also give equal prominence to the Judaic hatred and exploitation of women as outlined above… but they don’t.
