Ghost of a flea: We are at war with a rape cult

? Note to John McCain | Main | Vet the media ?

October 18, 2008

We are at war with a rape cult

The collective brain trust that make up the British security services has noticed a link between child pornography and Muslim terrorists. You all know where I am going with this.

It is not clear whether the terrorists were more interested in the material for personal gratification or were drawn to child porn networks as a secure means of sending messages. In one case fewer than a dozen images were found; in another, 40,000.

British security sources confirmed that such a link had been discovered in several cases. They noted the contradiction between people supposedly devoted to theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism and their use of child pornography. “It shows that these people are very confused,” a source said. “Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff.”

Note to the police forces of the UK: Western decadence makes the production and possession of child pornography illegal and our prison system - albeit informally - renders the harshest punishment to child sex offenders. "These people" are not confused, they are practising their religion. Here are some facts for confused officers charged with defending us from "these people".

Religious fundamentalists believe in different things depending on their religion. Devout Christians are opposed to child pornography. So too are devout Jews. Or devout Norse Odinists. Devout Muslims, by contrast, believe their prophet - the "perfect man" - married a six year old and started raping her/she started fulfilling her marital obligations when she was nine. There is no necessary contradiction between child pornography and the latter worldview provided the images are of non-Muslim children as such children are potential slaves. In so far as there is a potential religious conflict in this case, it concerns the representation of children for sexual gratification not the use of children for sexual gratification. We can point to child raping Christian cults, of course, but none of them command state power, none of them are successfully making war on civilization and none of them is protected from the full force of the law by a leftist suicide ideology that calls facts racist.

Any Muslim who finds this post offensive will receive a personal apology from me the moment he publishes a statement to the effect that Mohammed did not marry a six year, did not take her to his bed when she was nine and that any Muslim who claims otherwise - or who endorses marriage under some civilized age of consent (let's say 16 or 18) - is an apostate and encouraging paedophilia.

Notice how the British frame the issue, contrasting "Western decadence" with Muslim religious values and casting the "terrorists" - in fact, jihadis - as hypocrites. Not only does this repeat the usual lies about the belief system of the enemy, it explicitly condemns the West as decadent by contrast with authentic Islam. These are the publicly stated views of the police and security services.

Exit question: How long before Europe's ersatz feminists decide men having sex with nine year olds is true freedom for women? How long before Canadian and American feminists follow suit? Academic feminists claim only Muslim women are allowed to pass judgement on such practices; perhaps they hope to pass over mass rape in silence while Republican men fight and die to save their daughters from the same fate, condemning them all the while for doing so.

Directly related reminder: The war is not an engineering problem. It is a matter of whether we believe our rights, our liberties and our civilization are worth defending. Mark Steyn: “Civilizations die from suicide, not murder.”

I would argue that these incremental concessions to Islam are ultimately a bigger threat than terrorism. What matters is not what the lads in the Afghan cave—the “extremists”—believe, but what the non-extremists believe, what people who are for the most part law-abiding taxpayers of functioning democracies believe. For example, a recent poll found that 36 percent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 believe that those who convert to another religion should be punished by death. That’s not 36 percent of young Muslims in Waziristan or Yemen or Sudan, but 36 percent of young Muslims in the United Kingdom. Forty percent of British Muslims would like to live under Sharia—in Britain. Twenty percent have sympathy for the July 7 Tube bombers. And, given that Islam is the principal source of population growth in every city down the spine of England from Manchester to Sheffield to Birmingham to London, and in every major Western European city, these statistics are not without significance for the future.

Update: Kathy Shaidle considers the charge of hypocrisy.

The charge of "hypocrisy" allows Liberals the deeply human satisfaction of condemning something.

But since, in their worldview, condemning anything is, well, condemned, they condemn the offshoot -- hypocrisy -- rather than the other fellow's actual sin, because "sin" doesn't exist in their worldview either.

Condemning someone as a "hypocrite" -- and nothing more -- is like arresting the ventriloquist's dummy for the ventriloquist's crime.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at October 18, 2008 08:23 AM

Comments

They call them hypocrites because in Left Liberal PC land, hypocrisy is the biggest, the only sin, left. One's behaviour doesn't matter to them; what matters is whether or not your behaviour is "hypocritical", based on some real or imagined standard.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 18, 2008 10:50 AM

The charge of "hypocrisy" gives the charge-er the deeply human satisfaction of condemning something. But since in their world view, condemning anything is, well, condemned, they condemn the offshoot -- hypocrisy -- rather than the other fellow's actual sin, because sin doesn't exist anyway in their worldview.

It is like arresting the ventriloquist's dummy for the ventriloquist's crime.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 18, 2008 10:53 AM

Ghost, I read the Islamic feminist article you pointed to and unless I missed something the author didn't seem to be rationalizing away the oppression of women.

She claims that the Koran clearly contains "universal rights" for all that have been hijacked by men.

"...the oppressor is not the religion, but the macho reading that was made of its texts..."

Consequently, she advocates a new reading of the Koran that will turn the traditional attitudes toward women on their head and quotes one Ndeye Andujar is support. Andujar says: “The Koran is not a stone. There are as many readings as there are readers.”

This makes it sound like any other religion in which modernists who are sentimentally attached to the community and some of the values in the tradition are forced to read what they want into the ancient texts.

Posted by: Canadian Headhunter at October 18, 2008 03:51 PM

All religions based on scriptural law are indeed open to interpretation of that law. Islam, perhaps less so due to the nature of the revelation in question but the point stands.

First, I would refer you to Islamic law on distribution of property, on criminal testimony - particularly in the case of rape, and on ownership of slaves. Second, regardless of how some hypothetical progressive Muslim, or indeed Western academic apologist, might read Muslim law I refer you to the status of women in any jurisdiction on Earth governed by sharia.

Now consider whether you would be happy for your daughters to live under that law and tell me again there are as many readings as there are readers.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at October 18, 2008 03:57 PM

Headhunter:

First you (and that author) are both making the fatal mistake of assuming that these primitive people can actually read in the first place.

Second, real Muslims do not believe what this woman believes. A) she is a mere woman, b) she has been westernized. In other words, she is a heretic in their eyes.

She can 'read' all she wants into the text. I can 'read' Plan 9 From Outer Space as a parable of resurrection. We who can read can read all we like. While we can. But one day these primitive Muslims will take over and your readings will be for naught.

I don't care what the Koran does or doesn't say. It doesn't matter what make of car I get hit by either. These people want to kill us and we need to kill them first.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 18, 2008 04:11 PM

Ghost of a flea

October 18, 2008

We are at war with a rape cult

Comments

Post a comment