Epidemic of Rape of Unveiled Women by Muslim Immigrants

There is an "epidemic" of sorts in Europe (and Australia).  More and more Muslim men are being convicted of rape (often Gang-rape) of European women who dare to stray into Muslim dominated areas unveiled or less than veiled.

This barbarism is not just a European issue.  Remember Australia’s highest cleric and Egyptian-born Mufti, Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali equating unveiled women to Uncovered Meat?

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it…whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."

Here he was justifying the infamous Sydney gang rapes!

Another woman was approached by attackers at the Bankstown train station, who proposed she join them in smoking some marijuana at another location. She was taken to three separate locations by the men, raped 25 times by a total of fourteen men, in an ordeal that lasted six hours. After the attacks the woman was hosed down with a fire hose. The woman, who was known during the trial as ‘C’ to protect her identity, later told her story to 60 Minutes. She told of how the attackers called her an "Aussie Pig", asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would now be raped "Leb-style"

Women were compared to a "private part" by the Prophet himself and lower than men and a danger to them!

According to the prophet, a woman in her entirety is just like a private part of sexual temptation and identified her as the greatest danger to the MEN-folks:Muhammad said, "A woman is like a private part. When she comes out the devil holds her high. A woman has ten private parts. When she gets married her husband covers one private part; when she dies the grave covers other nine private parts"… [Al-Ghazali, ibid, volume 2, p.43]

Muhammad said, "There will remain no greater danger for the people after my death than women. Fear the world of women." [ibid, volume 3, p.86]

Here is a group discussion on this phenomenon:

A man sees a woman and she is not veiled. He thinks to himself: “Oh, I must rape her now.”

No matter how much I try to figure this out, I can’t. What’s the mindset here? If a person is upset that a woman is not veiled, it implies he wants some kind of supposed “morality.” But if he is thirsting for purity, how does perpetrating a violent sexual atrocity against the “immoral” one fit into moralizing her and the rest of society – and himself?

Raddatz: Your questions concerning mindset and morals put us right into the middle of the problem. They are the terms any culture’s collective psychology is basing on. In the case of prevailing orthodox Islam we are faced with a deep division between the sexes. With Allah’s unlimited ruling license the males are entitled to be the masters of the females. The Koranic order says that the man has to "go to the woman" whenever he likes, to "enjoy her however he likes", and to discipline her in case she develops her own ideas like sexual self-determination.

Over the centuries this basic frame had been filled with a lot of "prophetic" instructions as to what disastrous role the woman could play if the man as Allah’s deputy does not carry out this divine license of fertilizing control. Insofar the woman is looked upon from a "higher" biologistic viewpoint regarding her as "seed field" that – under strict male surveillance signaled by "Islamic correct" veiling – guarantees for the continued survival and expansion of Islam.   /p>

We are dealing here with premodern, partly archaic thinking that divides its world into two Manichaean halves. Irrespective of the usual statistical remnant of liberal "dissidents", the orthodox ideology bases on an Islamic half that accords to Koran and "prophetic" tradition and a non-Islamic half consisting of unbelievers and disobedient women. The religious war – known as "jihad" – against the latter two groups belongs, therefore, to the most prominent duties of the "believing" Muslim. Its "religious" dimension is boosted enormously by customary family "honor" installing male control from early youth on, often widening into brutal raping, sometimes incestuous punishing patterns. Here a complicated interaction between father, mother, son and daughter comes into play about which, I guess, Dr. Kobrin will give us quite interesting insights.

Thus, the ontological being in Islam is not defined by individual right but clearly as integral part of the community in terms of a whole and "holy" entirety. In this context the primary form of human being is seen in the male that assumes the right and duty to assist Allah in conserving and expanding his "umma", meaning his community.

Its biologistic "thinking" demands the "pure" man as the real human dominating the "impure" woman as a lower form, rather close to some animal-like existence. Therefore, sexuality cannot be sublimated and has to serve – aside from ramifications into homo-, paedo- and sodo-variants – a basic double function: fertilizing and punishing.

This paradigm expresses itself not only in highly standardized family patterns but also in an equally conformistic education system. All contents, in school and university of almost every Islamic country, are ultimately restricted and tied to Islamic purposes, thereby avoiding abstract thinking categories that could relativate and jeopardize the dogma’s absolute uniqueness. By the same token, however, and this is the core of "modern" Islam’s tragedy, the male controllers are confined to physical methods of "sublimation" whenever problems arise. Aside from the usual bombing "protest" against Western "arrogance" and "unbelieving morals", the current rape wave is the vital expression of an ongoing jihad against women who under Western influence may drift slowly out of the grip of male Muslim hands.

The war character of this behaviour may become clearer from its archaic punishment perspective that has come out of use generally but survived in Islam until present times. During the Algerian independence war the freedom fighters used to publicly sodomize French officers in order to achieve the enemy’s maximum degradation. The same applies to the woman as a possible internal enemy containing even a double danger: her alleged disobedience is a bio-political security risk for the Islamic entirety and her independent "devilish" sexuality represents a religious blasphemy, contaminating male purity. Both have to be dealt with accordingly: beating, raping, torturing, stoning, and killing.

While some UN organizations keep on complaining about this, the Western feminists keep silent because they are not interested in the general problem but rather concentrate on clutching to their few elitarian privileges, mainly in business. Doing this they are simple part of a greater Western mainstream that has started to adjust to Muslim immigrant political "sharia" demands based on the growing radical Islamist influence as well as oil price pressure. And mind you: keeping Muslim women obedient through male "honor" might also sustain their "seed field" fertilization rate thereby compensating for the Western "morals" of pornography and weak reproduction. In this respect global elite ideology, anti-Semitic "new age" fascism and Islam are not so far apart.

Powered by Qumana