Posted on 12/09/2005 2:52:39 PM PST by Mount Athos
Mark Steyn
Battered Westerner Syndrome inflicted by myopic Muslim defenders
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Last Thursday, in Sydney, the pack leader of a group of Lebanese Muslim gang-rapists was sentenced to 55 years in jail. I suppose I ought to say "Lebanese-Australian" Muslim gang-rapists, since the accused were Australian citizens. But, identity-wise, the rambunctious young lads considered themselves heavy on the Lebanese, light on the Australian. During their gang rapes, the lucky lady would be told she was about to be "f---ed Leb style" and that she deserved it because she was an "Australian pig."
But, inevitably, it's the heavy sentence that's "controversial." After September 11th, Americans were advised to ask themselves, "Why do they hate us?" Now Australians need to ask themselves, "Why do they rape us?" As Monroe Reimers put it on the letters page of The Sydney Morning Herald:
"As terrible as the crime was, we must not confuse justice with revenge. We need answers. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practiced with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."
Indeed. Many's the time, laboring under the burden of some or other ghastly Ottawa policy, I've thought of pinning some gal down and sodomizing her while 14 of my pals look on and await their turn. But I fear in my case the Monroe Reimers of the world would be rather less eager to search for "root causes." Gang rape as a legitimate expression of the campaign for social justice is a privilege reserved only unto a few.
Mr. Reimers, though, will be happy to know his view is echoed across the hemispheres. Five days before 9/11, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65% of the country's rapes were committed by "non-Western" immigrants -- a category which, in Norway, is almost wholly Muslim. A professor at the University of Oslo explained that one reason for the disproportionate Muslim share of the rape market was that in their native lands "rape is scarcely punished" because it is generally believed that "it is women who are responsible for rape."
So Muslim immigrants to Norway should be made aware that things are a little different in Scandinavia? Not at all! Rather, the professor insisted, "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because their manner of dress would be regarded by Muslim men as inappropriate. "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." Or to modify Queen Victoria's wedding-night advice to her daughter: Lie back and think of Yemen.
France? Well, I can't bring you any ethnic rape statistics from the Fifth Republic because the authorities go to great lengths not to keep any. But, even though the phenomenon of immigrant gang rape does not exist, there's already a word for it: the "tournante" -- or "take your turn." Last year, 11 Muslim men were arrested for enjoying a grand old tournante with a 14-year old girl in a cellar.
Denmark? "Three quarters of rapes are carried out by non-Danes," says Peter Skaarup, chairman of the People's Party, a member of the governing coalition.
Well, you get the idea. Whether or not Muslim cultures are more prone to rape is a question we shall explore another day. What's interesting is how easily even this most extreme manifestation of multiculturalism is subsumed within the usual pieties. Norwegian women must learn to be, in a very real sense, less "exclusionary." Lebanese male immigrants, fleeing a war-torn wasteland and finding refuge in a land of peace, freedom and opportunity, are inevitably transformed into gang rapists by Australian racism.
After September 11th, a friend in London said to me she couldn't stand all the America-needs-to-ask-itself stuff because she used to work at a rape crisis centre and she'd heard this blame-the-victim routine a thousand times before. America was asking for it: like those Norwegian women, it was being "provocative." My friend thought the multiculti apologists were treating America as a metaphorical rape victim. But, even so, it comes as a surprise to realize they do exactly the same to actual rape victims. After the O.J. verdict, it was noted by some feminists that "race trumped gender." What we've seen since September 11th is that multiculturalism trumps everything. Its grip on the imagination of the Western elites is unshakeable. Even President Bush, in the month after September 11th, felt obliged to line up a series of photo-ops so he could declare that "Islam is peace" while surrounded by representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which objected, on the grounds of "ethnic and religious stereotyping," to the prosecution of two men in Chicago for the "honour killing" of their female cousin.
On this "Islam is peace" business, Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Goettingen University in Germany, gave a helpful speech a few months back: "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them," he said. "The word 'peace,' for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or 'House of Islam' -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought." Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or "House of Peace."
On the face of it, that sounds ridiculous. The "Muslim world" -- the arc stretching from North Africa through South Asia -- is economically, militarily, scientifically and artistically irrelevant. But, looked at through the prism of Norwegian rape or French crime, the idea of a Dar al-Islam doesn't sound so ridiculous. The "code of silence" that surrounds rape in tightly knit Muslim families is, so to speak, amplified by the broader "code of silence" surrounding multicultural issues in the West. If all cultures are of equal value, how do you point out any defects?
As I understand it, the benefits of multiculturalism are that the sterile white-bread cultures of Australia, Canada and Britain get some great ethnic restaurants and a Commonwealth Games opening ceremony that lasts until two in the morning. But, in the case of those Muslim ghettoes in Sydney, in Oslo, in Paris, in Copenhagen and in Manchester, multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture -- the subjugation of women -- combine with the worst attributes of Western culture -- licence and self-gratification. Tattoed, pierced Pakistani skinhead gangs swaggering down the streets of Northern England are as much a product of multiculturalism as the turban-wearing Sikh Mountie in the vice-regal escort at Rideau Hall. Yet even in the face of the crudest assaults on its most cherished causes -- women's rights, gay rights -- the political class turns squeamishly away.
Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. There are many great things about India -- curry, pyjamas, sitars, software engineers -- but suttee was not one of them. What a pity we're no longer capable of being "judgmental" and "discriminating." We're told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can't expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it.
As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.
Islam For All reported the other day that, at present demographic rates, in 20 years' time the majority of Holland's children (the population under 18) will be Muslim. It will be the first Islamic country in western Europe since the loss of Spain. Europe is the colony now.
Or as Charles Johnson, whose excellent "Little Green Footballs" Web site turns up dozens of fascinating Islamic tidbits every day, suggested: "Maybe we should start a betting pool: Which European country will be the first to institute shari'a?"
What was the purpose of that post?
Criminals are criminals the world over. That is what this story is about. Islam, Pakistan, and Lebanon are irrelevant.
Incidentally, those guys wouldn't try that in Lebanon, where the males of the women raped would kill the girl who was raped to restore family "honour", then string up the rapists by their balls as punishment.
Is anyone here suggesting that rapists don't exist in non Muslim countries? That rapists in predominantly Christian countries the US have never attempted to portray the women they terrorize as unchaste sluts who "asked for it"? Why do you think rape shield laws were enacted (only after much lobbying by feminists, I should add)?
If Islam is a culture of misogyny, why have there been female leaders elected in predominantly Islamic countries?
Any country in which women do not assert and demand their rights is misogynistic.
Actually, it may be. Years ago, I knew a social worker who was working with a group of Albanian(Muslim) immigrants. Their rite of passage for boys was rape--if you rape a woman, you become a man.
Al -Nisa 4: 24 "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hand possess. "
"..."cultural beliefs" and an undiagnosed mental disorder"
If he intended for this to be redundant -- as I read it -- then maybe they are beginning to see the light.
"But the gross Islamophobic generalizations in this thread need to be refuted."
Mohammed's High Regard For Women
M uch has been spoken about the inhuman treatment of women in Islam. If one wants to know the reason behind this, one has to closely examine Mohammed's personal life. As far as women are conecerned, they were just objects of sexual desire for Prophet Mohammed.
Here I expose the insatiable sexual appetite that Mohammed possessed. This goes to show that among others, one of the main reasons for forming this insidious religion, Islam, was so that sex was freely available to the male followers in the name of Allah. As I have already proved in my article, Wondrous Treatment of Women In Islam, the Quran justifies treating a woman as nothing but an object for sexual desire and sometimes even an ordinary object would be treated better. Suras in the Quran seem to pop up conveniently, so that Mohammed can justify his perverted sexual actions. For example, when Mohammed wanted his adopted son's wife, he suddenly got a revelation from Allah declaring it right to take another man's wife. When he wanted to stop his wives from quarreling or to accept more wives, he got a quick revelation for it. My above points are illustrated from the verses taken from Sura 33...read more...
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/index.html
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Deuteronomy 20:14 - "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
Leviticus 19:20-22 - "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."
Several of the women Mohammed married were widows who were much older than him. His marriages were to provide for them.
But, if that's the tact you wish to take, what's your view on Solomon?
Safiyah, the Jewish Wife of Muhammad
The following is the story of Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty. This story, is reported in the Book of Tabaqat and is published also in the trusted Islamic site. http://www.muslimunited.org/topics/prophet/wives.html Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story.“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. "Why?" asked the Prophet. "I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaibar!"The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character.
Then there's all those women he took as slaves and gave out to his men as booty... some example for muslims to emulate!
I suggest you read the biography of the 'prophet' - you can link to it through my tagline.
Religion of rape.
Have Christians come thru a reformation? Do they still interpret every word of the Bible literally?
Do muslims not see the Koran as something very different to the Bible, as the word for word divine revelation to their head pedophile from allah via gabriel? The text of which is universal, for all time?
Because their islamic societies are backward and they lack the resources to engang in full scale jihad.
And don't forget the are too busy oppressing a large bulk of their own populations too.
LOL.... and there's the problem!
If they are unlucky enough to not have the required number of witmnees that for the criteris for sharis court, they will be the ones who may face the charges and the penalty for adultery.
Or in the case of Saudi where they import sex slaves "maids" from places like Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines and take away their passports, their rights and their dignity.... where their "employers" are able to beat them, molest them, and rape them with impunity, and where the "mistress" of the house is unable/unwilling to act as she is a mere "woman", and her only course of action to seeing her husband screw the "maid" is to take out her frustrations on the innocent slave and give her beatings to go with her husbands rape.
Saudi, a proud nation run on islamic law where if your maid tries to run away because of your treatment, you can simply accuse her of "theft" and she conveniently ends up at "chop chop square" after Friday prayers...
What is "Islamophobia," anyway?In an article yesterday, the journalist and Islamic apologist Stephen Schwartz defined "Islamophobia" this way:
Notwithstanding the arguments of some Westerners, Islamophobia exists; it is not a myth. Islamophobia consists of:• attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world;• condemning all of Islam and its history as extremist;
• denying the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate Muslim majority;
• insisting that Muslims accede to the demands of non-Muslims (based on ignorance and arrogance) for various theological changes, in their religion;
• treating all conflicts involving Muslims (including, for example, that in Bosnia-Hercegovina a decade ago), as the fault of Muslims themselves;
• inciting war against Islam as a whole.
While there may be by this definition some Islamophobes in the world, the definition actually obscures more than it reveals. Does the labeling as “Islamophobic” the practice of “attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world” mean that it is Islamophobic to focus attention on the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet as motivations for terrorist activity? If so, then jihad terrorists worldwide are themselves “Islamophobic,” for as we have seen, they routinely point to jihad passages from the Qur’an and Hadith to justify their actions. Nor is a frank discussion of the doctrine of Islamic jihad equivalent to saying that the “entire religion of Islam” is a “problem for the world: no one is saying that tayammum (ablution with sand instead of water) or dhikr (a dervish religious devotion) or other elements of Islam pose a problem for the world.
Defining as “Islamophobic” the condemnation of “all of Islam and its history as extremist” is similarly problematic — and not just because of the sloppy imprecision of the word “extremist.” Jihad and dhimmitude are and always have been part of Islam. Yet no religious commandment of any religion has ever been uniformly observed by its adherents, and no law has ever been universally enforced. Jews and Christians in Islamic lands were able at various times and places to live with a great deal of freedom; however, this does not contradict the fact that the laws of the dhimma always remained on the books, able to be enforced anew by any Muslim ruler with the will to do so.
Likewise, it may be “Islamophobic” to deny “the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate Muslim majority,” but this also is beside the point. The existence of a moderate Muslim majority is not a question of “Islamophobia” or lack thereof, but of fact. But it is a fact that is very hard to ascertain with certainty -- not least because of the problem of definition: it’s useless to affirm that there is a “moderate Muslim majority” without clearing up the meaning of the word “moderate.” What makes a moderate Muslim? One who does not and never will engage in terrorist acts? That would make moderates an overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide. Or is a moderate one who sincerely disapproves of those terrorist acts? That would reduce the number of moderates. Or is a moderate Muslim one who actively speaks out and works against the jihadists? That would lower the number yet again. Or finally, is a moderate Muslim one who actively engages the jihadists in a theological battle, trying to convince Muslims on Islamic grounds that jihad terrorism is wrong? That would leave us with a tiny handful.
It might fall under their freedom of religion principles.
Perhaps "freedom of religeous expression" is a more appropriate phrase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.