A friend of mine is a retired chief of police, who used to be in charge of the security of a major city in the south of France. He reported to me that his men had to face an average of 10 rapes a week, 80% made by Muslim young men. 30% being what we call, in French, a “ tournante “, meaning that the victim is being raped by an entire gang, one after the other, often during an entire night. My friend reports that, in many cases, he was able to locate and arrest the rapists, often very young ones, and, as part of the investigation, call the families. He was astonished that, in most cases, the parents not only would back up their rapist children, but also would not even understand why they would be arrested. There is an instant shift in the notion of good and evil as a major component of culture. The only evil those parents would see, genuinely, is the temptation that the male children had to face. Since in most cases the victims were not Muslims, the parents’ answer and rejection was even more genuine: how could their boys be guilty of anything, when normally answering to a provocation by occidental women, known for their unacceptable behavior?
I should probably state that "this" comes from a FrontPage Magazine symposium on the rise of rapes by Islamic men against non-Islamic women.
Rape, it seems, is very much a part of Islamic culture, justified by religion:
Female “provocation” in the Muslim society is usually a definition for the mildest behavior. Smiling, singing, talking, being alone for one minute in the same room as the rapist, having answered a question in an inappropriate way, wearing clothes which are not strictly in obedience with what is locally considered as the Muslim rules, all of these innocent behaviors are seen as a misconduct authorizing “revenge.”
...
In Muslim society the male is dominant and almighty since he is made after God, when women have been created as a necessary evil to tempt males. In other words, the female body is the closest thing to the Devil, something which has to be dominated as a proof a faith. We go back to the sacrifice of Eros to Thanatos, as one of the basic sacrifices of all monotheisms, where, since the origins of the Bible, first inspiration to the Koran, women have been the carriers of the original sin.
In such a pattern, a male will not only consider any suspect behavior, including the mildest one, as an evil temptation, but he might look forward to experiencing one, as a religious challenge. Whatever will happen then won’t be the result of his own will, but he believes in having received absolution in advance for an act that, he knows, is against his own religion. During these minutes of deception and absolute power, he is not abusing a woman but fighting the Devil inside.
This is such an alien concept to me. If you are tempted by something, the best way to resist it is to give in to it? So if I'm tempted to steal, rather than resist the temptation, I should show my dominance over the temptation by not just stealing the thing I want, but cleaning out the entire store, then burning it to the ground? (Or, perhaps more accurately, vandalizing and damaging the store until the owner has it burned to the ground to eliminate his shame.)
I know I should be tolerant of other cultures and other ideas, but I do not see why I should have to be tolerant of this. That my daughter could be gang raped by muslims for simply smiling at them is incomprehensible and completely unacceptable. If this is what these people believe--and are not willing to denounce such behavior at the border--then I don't want them living in my country.
We evidently have no problem excluding Mexican or asian immigrants, whose main downside is their poverty, but are hard-working and generally moral. Is it really such a stretch to exclude a people who overtly despise our culture, plot its downfall, and believe they have a god-given right (if not responsibility) to rape women who don't live down to their standards?
What is worse, however, is that many westerners actually defend this behavior:
As far as the Western feminists are concerned, they seem to be hovering in other dimensions, in absolute arrogance, learned from ethnologues like Claude Lévy-Strauss. For them, freedom is that each "culture" may it be as inhuman as can be, is entitled to prosper even on our soil. The next act in this surrealistic piece of stage play is the unlimited understanding that Norwegian Professor Ms. Unni Wikan, shows for Muslims raping Western women: Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes, as they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it, as Mark Steyn reported already in 2002.
If this is correct, am I to believe that the women who were burning their bras forty years ago are advocating full robes today?! It's okay to be dominated by men, so long as it's not American men? Did I oversleep and miss the Stupid Train?
The Muslim male immigrants hate it in the USA because they are not totally free to live according to the sharia.
I'm glad to see we're holding the line for the moment. But make no mistake: the line must continue to be held. As more and more muslims come to this country they will gain confidence in their ability to coerce, threaten, and dominate our culture to the point that no one will dare resist them, either from fear or from "moral superiority."
The Great American Melting Pot is a thing of the past. Celebrating diversity is the "in" thing these days. Except the muslims don't want to celebrate, nor do they want diversity. If they get their way it will be "Celebrate Sharia Or Die!"
I understand there are many, many muslims in America who are more than happy with American values, culture, and law. To them I extend my welcome, and express my hopes that they are helping the newer immigrants to adjust.
But to the immigrants coming here hoping to impress muslim culture on America I have but one thing to say: This is America, the land of scanty fashions and strong-willed women. Keep your pants on and go take a cold shower. Or stay home.
2 comments:
This is what happens when you let an outside force (a god, a leader, a nation, etc) dictate your personal morality. Sooner or later, the outside force will become corrupted, and you will be given an excuse to do all the dark things the worst parts of your soul want to do. Because you never developed the inner strength to resist it, you won't resist. And bit by bit you will become something that doesn't deserve to live. I don't know if I'm advocating hatred, here, but I am advocating the dismissal of all excuses for despicable acts like this one. If your religion tells you that rape and murder of nonbelievers is justifiable, then it is not worthy of tolerance. Your right to your cracked-out beliefs ends where other people begin.
I think there is just as much danger in letting only internal forces dictate your personal morality. It is highly unlikely that an individual will consistently choose to act in the best interest of humanity of their own volition.
Nor is it fair to blame it all on religion. There are varying degrees of islamic fanaticism, and though I find the more extreme forms found in Pakistan and Afghanistan, other countries such as Jordan and Yemen are pushing in a much different direction.
I believe the heart of the problem is not Islam, per se, or the oppressive natures of many muslim regimes, but rather a combination of religion, government, and economics. Though the overall form is different, there are many parallels to Nazi Germany.
The Germans had a long, proud heritage, but were experiencing severe economic problems and a growing frustration. Along comes the Nazis, who were able to tap into that frustration, that desire for a return to former glories. They further stoked the fire with extreme forms of religion and strong, oppressive government. The people, even more poor, frustrated, and powerless, had to direct that anger at someone else.
It's hard in the West to see the forces at work in the Middle East. There are the more visible, violent forces trying to drag the people into a fight with the world. But there are other forces trying to move the people into a peaceful, collaborative relationship with the world.
The problem is, the Middle East is a time bomb. The primary source of income there is oil. Right now it is in their favor. There is more than enough money to do whatever they want to do, whether it is building an indoor ski resort or building an international terror organization.
But the money won't last forever. The muslims must either control the world by then or be a full partner in the knowledge-based economy. One of these two forces must win, as to be somewhere in between will spell disaster.
One force is quite noisy and quite dangerous. The other is quiet, but just as relentless. We need to be fighting against one and supporting the other. Unfortunately, I think we just took a major step backward this week with the UAE ports deal.
We should be supporting the peaceful, enterprising arabs; the ones who want to play by the world's rules. Yes, it's hard to know which ones you can trust and which are fronts for the other force, but we have to try. If muslim youths see they can accomplish more by cooperating with the world than by dominating it, they'll gladly choose that path.
But for now, that path is not available to far too many muslims. They take the only path available to them, which is the one that scares the rest of us.
Post a Comment