Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?
I got some comments, among others from Norwegian blogger Bjørn Stærk, to my posts about the Norwegian government covering up the number of rapes committed by immigrants. The Swedish government is probably even worse, but Sweden is in many ways collapsing. Although he agreed that the statistics should be published, he questioned whether these rapes have anything to do with Islam. It is true that mass rapes of "the enemy's women", in part to humiliate the enemy's men, is not unique to Islam. 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. That's also my point. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It 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 as it is with the whites and blacks." In France, grotesque reports about systematic gang rapes of French or "too Western" Muslim girls keep coming in. At the same time, European jails are getting filled up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. You can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That's because they can't, or don't want to, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave. Rape, pillage and bomb.I disagree that this has nothing to do with Islam. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. And Muslims do follow their medieval religious laws, even today:
Robert Spencer on rape and jihad
What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).
After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.
Here's what Vice Director of Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, whom I rate in league with Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq as among the best commentators of Islam in this age, has to say about the issue (scroll down):
'For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct'
For non-Muslim women, they are in every respect -- the way they walk, the way they talk, those bedroom eyes we all know so well -- simply asking for it, and Muslim men have every right to do what they wish.
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 -- by demographic conquest rather than military conquest. It has worked in many parts of Africa; and if Muslims fail to reproduce even faster than they do, there is always the expedient of killing the remaining Infidels.
All over France there are cases of rapes, by MUslim gangs, of French girls. In Australia, in 2000, Bankstown and Greenacre (in Sydney) had a succession of gang-rapes, in which the victims testified to the particularly gruesome details of being assaulted by a dozen or more men at a time, screaming at them for being "Aussies" or "Christians." It made a big splash in Sydney, when the cases came to trial in 2002. Alan Jones, an Australian commentator, noted: "Let's not mince words here -- these are racist attacks against ordinary Australian girls carried out by out of control Muslim Lebanese...." The girls themselves all testified to the fact that the attacks were full of observations about, not race, but religion -- and the confusion of Jones here is understandable. The Western world is still groping to understand something of which it had been so remarkably and indeed, in some ways so fortunately unaware; it is the attitudes engendered toward Infidels -- a Frenchman who is beaten to death for trying to retrieve his daughter's stolen bicycle, a mother and her year-old-child assaulted on an RER train near Louvres, the thousands of assaults which are a modern version of the rape and pillage that Muslim conquerors were permitted whenever they conquered Infidel lands. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime.
Have we forgotten the mass rapes, at the hands of Muslims (Turks, Kurds, and in the Syrian Desert, Arabs) of the Armenian women, those helpless "giavours," in the first full-scale massacres in modern times, those of 1894-1895, and then the genocidal campaign that began in 1915 and went on for years? Have we all forgotten what happened to the Assyrian Christian women during the Assyrian massacres of 1933, when -- just a few months after the British left -- Muslim Iraqis had a high old time with their helpless Christian population? What about the rapes of the Christian women, kidnapped in Ramadi, Iraq last year -- never to be returned to their husbands, and now the permanent property of the Muslims who kidnapped them? Shall one recall what happened to the Christian Maronites in Damur, at the hands of the PLO? What about the Copts, in Egypt? Or, during the Algerian War the mass rape of Christian and Jewish women by the FLN (scarcely given enough attention in Alastair Horne's reticent "A Savage War of Peace" but given much more by such writers as Jacques Soustelle, the great ethnographer of Mexican culture, and a perceptive analyst of the Algerian situation and the real nature of Islam -- akin, in his way, to Andre Servier).
The figures on Muslim rape of Western women in Europe are astounding. In Denmark and Norway, between 65% and 70% of all rapes are committed by Muslims, who as yet still less than 5% of the population. One local judge in Norway actually exonerated one rapist by accepting his defense that the victim's dress was taken by him to mean that she was egging him on. Her dress was nothing special to Norwegians, but the judge found it to be unbearably provocative to this poor Muslim immigrant. A curious argument, is it not? Even if she had been dressed a la Gisele Bundchen doing a shoot for Victoria's Secret -- and she of course was not -- rape is not an acceptable response.
The argument now seems to be: Western mores are offensive. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. Western laws may "apply" but not in any sense that really counts or that we reocgnize. We recognize Islamic law, the sharia, and according to that we are simply exhibiting the attiudes toward Infidels that are drummed into us, that are right and according to the laws of Allah. Why should we act differently? Oh, and if we happen to act, as some of the Islamic websites tell us we can act, in accordance with the local laws -- but 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.
In other words, when in Rome, if you are Muslim, do any damn thing you please and justify it by saying you didn't realize you were in Rome, or what the Romans did, and anyway, the Romans are Infidels so who cares what they do, or expect. A fascinating attitude. The sooner this is fully grasped by Infidels, the fewer victims, ultimately, there will be.
posted by Unknown @ 10:04 AM
9 Comments:
fjordman. Wow!
You said it all ... and very eloquently. Your command of English is impressive and you use to great advantage.
What do you think it would take to get your fellow Northern Europeans to wake up?
Northern Europeans have permitted Islamists to not only disrupt their peaceful and orderly society with murder and mayhem, they also pay them from the public treasury, so they needn't be concerned with seeking gainful employment but can spend their days in coffee shops reinforcing their religion of hate and violence.
Savages rape their wives and daughters on the instructions from Allah and husbands and fathers do nothing. The government officials elected to serve the people are reluctant to enforce the law of the land lest they be criticized for being judgmental and insensitive.
Either the gene for protective husband and father has been surgically altered when little boys are born or decades of pacifism and socialism have deadened, if not destroyed, their inborn animal instincts, sometimes referred to as testosterone, to protect their families?
I don't let the women who stand by wringing their hands off the hook, they are visible on the comment threads here on your blog, but I believe that they are even more victimized by the decades of appeasement propaganda than the men in your society and will be perfectly useless in any movement to protect their children, their homes and their society from a scourge far worse than the bubonic plague.
I never thought I'd have a point of agreement with Islam, but I'm afraid I must join these avatars in their utter contempt for European men.
Irene: The mistake was actually made by Hugh. I just copied the text as it was written.
"I'm afraid I must join these avatars in their utter contempt for European men."
I still want to place A LOT of the responsibility squarely at the altar of Feminism. European women have systematically weakened any traditional sense of masculinity in their own sons for decades, and are now reaping the effects of this. It is also the women who are most positive to immigration and multiculturalism, thus facilitating the Islamic invasion of Europe. Western women are undermining their own freedom and security, as well as that of their daughters. I'm not impressed with women who spend thousands of years to achieve the kind of freedoms they now enjoy, and then flush it down the toilet the first chance they get. I will be happy to share some of the blame with naive and clueless European women who demonize "xenophobic" men who want to limit Muslim immigration. Are women simply more naive then men?
"Are women simply more naive then men?" In a word, yes, and they're more emotional and changeable and different in a lot of other ways as well. The excuse that men wimped out and went against their nature and biology because that's what women said they wanted, won't wash. Sorry.
Deep down women want to be swept off their feet by the strong handsome prince no matter what feminist literature and harridan screeching say. That doesn't mean to say women want to be raped as an Islamist might interpret those words. Women want their nests protected and their men needn't be cave-men brutes in order to do that, but even the most civilized and rational man who learns his wife or daughter was raped must feel enraged and seek to punish the rapist, if not with his own hands, at least with the force of the law. To stand meekly by is simply wrong and I cannot fathom the mindset of such a man.
Both men and women were sold a bill of good by the moonbat lefties. It's like the old Richard Pryor joke. When caught in the act, he asks his wife: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" For decades now, you believed them instead of what your own eyes and minds told you was right. You allowed yourself to be convinced that being discriminating or judgmental was the worse of crimes and allowed your centuries old traditions of peace and tranquility to be turned on its head rather than say the simple truth that some people are bad and even evil.
You allowed yourself to be convinced that human nature was wrong, and that equality between men and women didn't mean equality of intelligence and capability which demanded equality in education and career opportunities, but an actual equality in all things.
This led to the nonsensical farce and fiction that women scarcely five feet tall and weighing less than a hundred pounds could be firefighters and do an equal job of men a foot or more taller and double their weight. Of course, the reality is they can't and extra pressure is put on the men who have to pick up the slack.
The fact is that our biology is very different from male biology. Notice, I said different, not better not worse. We’re fitted out by biology (God, if you like) with the necessary apparatus and hormones to propagate the race and the maternal instinct to nourish our children until they are grown up and ready to repeat the process.
Your biology has fitted you out to produce the other half of the hormones necessary to create the next generation, but that's only a small part of your responsibility, you have also been fitted out with the building blocks of muscle which you need to build the strength necessary to protect us, but there's another wrinkle there as well. Those same hormones are what impels men to rise to occasion when needed to fight and defend their homes.
Without this automatic response, men are truly pathetic creatures whining about not knowing what women want. Pick up a Woody Allen video if you'd like a picture of what you will have become if you try to deny that part of your nature. Not a pretty picture.
"The excuse that men wimped out and went against their nature and biology because that's what women said they wanted, won't wash. Sorry."
What kind of crap is that? Biology is an important part of who we are, yes. So is culture and upbringing. Western men and Muslim men share the same biology. Why do you think our behavior is different?
Men are raised by women. Western men today have frequently been raised by mothers expressing an openly hostile attitude to anything male and maleness in general. Are you trying to tell me mothers don't matter at all? Give me a break!
It is a fact that women vote more than men for the "softest" parties when it comes to dealing with Muslim immigration. Which means women vote for their own enslavement.
I'm not impressed.
"Let the truth be published. If the data has not been collected, then ask WHY? After all, governments do collect data to indicate where they should channel resources."
The government knows quite a lot about what's going on. To hide something like this from the public is treason. Period.
You're right: We wandered off from the original topic. I think those responsible for hiding the statistics should be forced to resign, and the numbers should be published. The fact that Swedish and Norwegian media haven't demanded this so far is embarrassing, and a sign that the entire democratic society is in trouble.
"Western men and Muslim men share the same biology. Why do you think our behavior is different?"
Because you drank the kool-aid.
"Western men and Muslim men share the same biology. Why do you think our behavior is different?"
Because you drank the kool-aid.
_________________________________
Sorry pd111, your're right I should have indicated that the remarks inside the quotes were originally made by fjordman.
Thanks for for the heads up. Following these few rules makes the comments much more readable.
erp, how does one convince a woman to do what she should do? The last time I tried to argue from a male perspective I wound up on everyone's s**t list permanently. If a guy stands up to another male, his wife or girlfriend jumps in his case. How does one deal with that? Our culture prohibits the caveman style yet if a woman doesn't want to listen the man is turned off. How does he convince her? I had three children, that didn't make it to birth. I wasn't in the decision process for the abortions because the law wouldn't allow me to be in it if she didn't want me in the process. How does one combat the law that women and their sychophants have constructed?
Post a Comment
<< Home