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. |
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário