Islam: Rape Of Male Children As Told By A Survivor

[Kulindahr]

I am not saying I necessarily agree with this. My opinion on their lives doesn't count—theirs does. It is their lives Maria and I do think we Westerners need not meddle so much!

If we had sufficiently advanced technology available to make it convincing, I would happily go meddle by appearing miraculously atop their holy rock, overturning a few themes from the Qu'ran, do some convincing miracles, then walk off into the desert and vanish into the clouds in a fiery chariot.

Do you understand the seriousness of that responsibility? This is why most Iranian men don't get married until they're in their 30s—they're not usually financially stable enough until then.

And meanwhile they rape little boys and line up little girls to be their brides.

 

[Rusty Crown]

Seriously I can't get religious gay people! HOW?

 

[Kulindahr]

Seriously I can't get religious gay people! HOW?

You think only straight people should find truth important?

 

[Mariatenebre]

Maria, all I ask you is to put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

Just pretend there's a woman in rural Turkey. Let's call her Nurtan.

She says,"There's an American woman named Maria who wants to make us all go out and get jobs. Who does she think she is? Why, I'm happy with my life."

"This is why I don't like Americans" she continues,"they meddle too much."

Can you at least see her point of view?

And this:



Gosh, Maria, I just don't know what to say about this. The nicest thing I can say about it is that it's "American cultural imperialism."

And one other thing: Do you realize the man's role in Muslim society? It's a huge one. He's responsible for her welfare from dawn to dusk.

Do you understand the seriousness of that responsibility? This is why most Iranian men don't get married until they're in their 30s—they're not usually financially stable enough until then.

I can see her perspective and her perspective is wrong because it is based on brainwashed sexism. Further more I am not saying that all women need to run out and get a job however they should be able to get a job if they want to and all women should be able to be independant. However if a man or woman want to be a house husband or house wife that is perfectly fine so long as other oppurtunities are open to them.

There is no oppurtunities open to these women. They are basically nothing more then a ward of a man and are totally dependant on him and submissive to his needs. There were many women when the feminist movement started in the West who said the same thing as foolish Nurtan because they were brainwashed in to sexist ideology, there were even blacks who liked being slaves. However we changed the culture and women and other races were better off because of it. Again the only reason that you are supporting sexism in these countries but not in your own is because that they are foreign and you support cultural relativism and think that women's rights should be subordinate to the culture when it should be the other way around. You think that foreign culture should be respected no matter whether it is sexist or not when in reality individual rights and women's rights should be respected and if the culture does not respect these things then it deserves to be destroyed.

Next I fully believe in cultural imperialism. Not all cultures are equal and those cultures who do not give women equality but make them no more then dependant slaves to men are not to be respected but to be fought against. Women's rights are non negotiable, if your culture does not have them then said culture is evil.

Further more I know the role of men in Muslim societies. They are basically given full power over their wives and while they are supposed to care for their wives. They can stop caring for their wives and even beat them if the wife does something her husband does not like. It makes women nothing more then the dependant slaves to their husbands.

I know the mindset of Islam it is a view that women are too weak, helpless and inferior in order to take care of themselves and therefore must have a man to have complete control of her and be subservient to his wishes because she like a child or an animal can't take care of herself and is to deficient to run her life. I am sure that many women just like the women here before the feminist movement are scared of having equal rights because they have been brainwashed to think that they can not take care of themselves and the idea of having power over themselves is scary because they are not use to taking care of and doing things for themselves. However such equality gives these women more power and prosperity in their lives and raises the nation higher. The fact that you are willing to accept sexism just because it is cultural and the fact that you listen to the brainwashed women in these cultures shows how deluded and sexist you are in your cultural relativism to think that women and individual rights are only ok if the culture permits them. Again it is individual rights and women's rights which should be respected not culture.

 

[Kulindahr]

Johann, she's got the Bible on her side about women's rights. The Old Testament image of a proper wife is a property manager, runs a business, supervises numerous workers, and still manages to have time to raise and educate the kids -- definitely not "barefoot and pregnant". And Paul's image in the New Testament is one who goes out into the world as an equal with the best of them.
Oops -- I skipped over Jesus, who treated women as equals with men, publicly, much to the offense of the "proper" people on more than one occasion.

 

[yummylongsword]

^I see her point of view, Kulindahr, her heart's in the right place.

But what I can't get over is the "cultural imperialism" She thinks it's OK; I do not.
I don't think we Westerners have the right to decide for other cultures what is best for them.

Maria, I guess there's no place to go from here. Thank you for a lively debate.

In years past, you probably would have been right. The "West" had no reason to meddle in the cultures that arose separately from them.

However, the world doesn't work like that anymore. In the coming years, nations will become less and less autonomous. Like it or not, the entire planet is coming closer and closer together; what happens in the middle east directly affects what happens to us in the west. We can't just let other cultures continue on with practices that will not jive with the dominant world norms. We can't take a step back culturally just so that we're not "meddling" with people in other parts of the world.

Of course, how we should go about changing cultures in other parts of the world remains to be seen. They might change themselves if we'd just stop mucking around and causing wars, but who knows?

 

[Kulindahr]

^I see her point of view, Kulindahr, her heart's in the right place.

But what I can't get over is the "cultural imperialism" She thinks it's OK; I do not.
I don't think we Westerners have the right to decide for other cultures what is best for them.

Maria, I guess there's no place to go from here. Thank you for a lively debate.

Decide for them, no -- our weapon has to be what Martin Luther prescribed: word and example.

In fact if we go beyond those, and in any way apply coercion, we've betrayed the message.

 

[Kulindahr]

In years past, you probably would have been right. The "West" had no reason to meddle in the cultures that arose separately from them.

However, the world doesn't work like that anymore. In the coming years, nations will become less and less autonomous. Like it or not, the entire planet is coming closer and closer together; what happens in the middle east directly affects what happens to us in the west. We can't just let other cultures continue on with practices that will not jive with the dominant world norms. We can't take a step back culturally just so that we're not "meddling" with people in other parts of the world.

Of course, how we should go about changing cultures in other parts of the world remains to be seen. They might change themselves if we'd just stop mucking around and causing wars, but who knows?

We would start by keeping barbarism from infecting us: no shari'a law in western countries.

 

[Mariatenebre]

^I see her point of view, Kulindahr, her heart's in the right place.

But what I can't get over is the "cultural imperialism" She thinks it's OK; I do not.
I don't think we Westerners have the right to decide for other cultures what is best for them.

Maria, I guess there's no place to go from here. Thank you for a lively debate.

Of course we have a right to decide what is best for other cultures. We are in the right and we have freedom and individual rights. The ones who are in the right are the ones who have the right to decide for other people and cultures what is right.

Again cultures are not what should be respected. Individual rights and womens rights are to be respected. If said culture does not respect these things then they should not be respected.

You think that women's rights should be subservient to the culture when in reality it should be the other way around. All this is, is simply cultural relativism IE the view that all forms of depravity should be accepted based on the collectivist idea of culture when in reality culture means nothing and it is the individual who is everything.

Decide for them, no -- our weapon has to be what Martin Luther prescribed: word and example.

In fact if we go beyond those, and in any way apply coercion, we've betrayed the message.

When it comes to people who kill gays, have child brides and sew up their daughter's vagina. No ammount if example is going to get through to these people. The only way to get them to stop this is by force.

We would start by keeping barbarism from infecting us: no shari'a law in western countries.

I agree with this but with the immoral leftist/Islamic alliance they will do anything to spread Shariah. In fact Shariah is the only form of theocracy that Liberals accept.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course we have a right to decide what is best for other cultures. We are in the right and we have freedom and individual rights. The ones who are in the right are the ones who have the right to decide for other people and cultures what is right.

Again cultures are not what should be respected. Individual rights and womens rights are to be respected. If said culture does not respect these things then they should not be respected.

This was exactly his point: they'll say exactly the same thing.

You think that women's rights should be subservient to the culture when in reality it should be the other way around. All this is, is simply cultural relativism IE the view that all forms of depravity should be accepted based on the collectivist idea of culture when in reality culture means nothing and it is the individual who is everything.

He didn't say that -- he merely pointed out that from their point of view, you're a meddling busybody who understands nothing.

BTW, I wouldn't say "culture means nothing" -- culture has some very useful functions. But culture is not sovereign -- the individual is.

When it comes to people who kill gays, have child brides and sew up their daughter's vagina. No ammount if example is going to get through to these people. The only way to get them to stop this is by force.

Spreading our culture by force is to a great extent what brought us to the situation where the radical Islamists want to spread theirs by force: we taught them that force is what matters.

Beyond that, example is getting through: the only thing at this point which will interrupt the slow match of secularism in Muslim countries is a nuclear exchange that devastates entire nations. That, in fact, is the real game with Iran: whether the forces of secularism can topple the Mullahs before the Mullahs decide to start nuking "infidels".

I agree with this but with the immoral leftist/Islamic alliance they will do anything to spread Shariah. In fact Shariah is the only form of theocracy that Liberals accept.

Well, maybe watching England and France will wake people up. And I know what would happen in this country if Muslims started seceding and putting their neighborhoods under Shari'a law: a Second Amendment solution. It would be a perfectly justifiable one, too, because one of the functions of the militia is to protect the nation from invasion -- and by definition, if some force moves in and supplants the nation's laws somewhere within its borders, that's an invasion.

 

[KaraBulut]

Johann, she's got the Bible on her side about women's rights. The Old Testament image of a proper wife is a property manager, runs a business, supervises numerous workers, and still manages to have time to raise and educate the kids -- definitely not "barefoot and pregnant". And Paul's image in the New Testament is one who goes out into the world as an equal with the best of them.

Recently, I was reading through a will written in the 19th century where a man divides his property up among family members, including his two slaves. In the will, he mentions them as family and that he wishes for them to have a homestead since they are old.

While it's lovely that he viewed them as family and wished to give them some of his land, it doesn't change the fact that they were slaves- property that would otherwise be divided up with the land, the cows, the horses and other material goods. It also doesn't change the fact that before 1865, society didn't view them as citizens. They couldn't work and earn a living. In some states, they couldn't marry. They had no representation in the local, state or federal government.

So, out of context the words in the Bible regarding women sound great. They were important in the household and in the family. But once they set foot outside the home, they were little more than property. They could not work and earn a living. They could not have a career of their own. They couldn't serve in government- secular or religious. When their husbands died, unless another male relative agreed to take them (and their children) in, they were left to beg or be trash pickers to earn a living.

Oops -- I skipped over Jesus, who treated women as equals with men, publicly, much to the offense of the "proper" people on more than one occasion.

It is true that Jesus was a bit more liberal on the issue of the role of women.

However, let's not forget that the Catholic church expunged Mary from most of the teachings about Christ and his disciples. And later, she was rebranded as a common whore who Jesus had redeemed.


Which brings us back to the original story and one of the earlier questions about why Abdellah's family didn't intercede when a group of drunken men showed up at his family's home yelling for Abdellah to come out to play.

Abdellah was in a room with his mother and her 9 children. His mother was poor, illiterate and a woman in a country where men control the power. More than likely, she just wanted the men to leave and not cause any trouble... which they eventually did. And in most countries, a woman in similar circumstances would do the same.

 

[Mariatenebre]

This was exactly his point: they'll say exactly the same thing.



He didn't say that -- he merely pointed out that from their point of view, you're a meddling busybody who understands nothing.

BTW, I wouldn't say "culture means nothing" -- culture has some very useful functions. But culture is not sovereign -- the individual is.



Spreading our culture by force is to a great extent what brought us to the situation where the radical Islamists want to spread theirs by force: we taught them that force is what matters.

Beyond that, example is getting through: the only thing at this point which will interrupt the slow match of secularism in Muslim countries is a nuclear exchange that devastates entire nations. That, in fact, is the real game with Iran: whether the forces of secularism can topple the Mullahs before the Mullahs decide to start nuking "infidels".



Well, maybe watching England and France will wake people up. And I know what would happen in this country if Muslims started seceding and putting their neighborhoods under Shari'a law: a Second Amendment solution. It would be a perfectly justifiable one, too, because one of the functions of the militia is to protect the nation from invasion -- and by definition, if some force moves in and supplants the nation's laws somewhere within its borders, that's an invasion.

I am aware that they will say the exact same thing. The difference is that I have the facts on my side.

Culture if it is a functioning culture that values individual human rights can be useful however cultures that discriminate against gays, women and disbelievers have got to go.

Next you need to check your facts as Islam has spread itself by force ever since it has been founded. The countless dead Pagans, Jews and Christians can attest to this. We did not teach them to use force against the world Mohammad taught Muslims this. However there is really no way to negotiate with people who believe in child brides, killing homosexuals and disbelievers.

Next I fully agree the people in Europe need to take their lands back from the invasions lead by Muslims. Muslims basically have their own countries that they invaded in their neighborhoods and the Europeans are doing nothing to stop this.

@Maria: I think both of us are doing a HUGE amount of projection here.

But first, let me explain something: That analogy about the kittens doesn't reflect how I think; it reflects how THEY think. They see women as humans who need to be protected, and see Western culture as cruel, because it puts women in a place where they have to fend for themselves. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Let's go back to the projection, shall we? I have to admit that I'm a little bit envious of Muslim wives, because of the type of person I am. I love to cook and clean. I used to babysit for the family, and got so good at it that they began to abuse the privilege. I'd show the kids how to cook ("you can lick the bowl"), then I'd say,"Let's disco dance for a while." and so on.

So for someone like me, being a Muslim wife'd be bliss. I could do the things I'd love best, and my man could take care of me. I'd not have to work at a job I didn't like. I could work on perfecting recipes. And play with the kids. And so on.

But as for you?

I can see why you'd hate that life. You've mentioned women owning businesses several times. That tells me:

•Either you own your own business right now, or
•You want to.

You're a strong, dynamic woman, for whom a life of being a Muslim wife would be utter hell.

I can see your point of view. You have stayed involved in this conversation for quite a while now, which tells me that you carry the troubles of the world on your shoulders That makes you, at heart, a good person. An uncaring person wouldn't give a shit about the plight of Muslim women.

But do you have to advocate force to change those societies? <scratches head>

That's where you and I have what they call a "Mexican standoff". We can't go any further.

Thanks for the debate, though. It was a good one. I'd be looking forward to seeing you in other threads.

I know how the Muslims think I have been debating Muslims and other Abrahamics for a long time, the problem is they are wrong.

Next I have no problem with a man or a woman being a house husband or house wife. However the relationship should be one of equals. Said house spouse should not be forced to submit to the will of their partner, nor should the partner have absolute power over them. It goes with out saying as well that the working partner should have no right to beat said house partner. Also said house spouse should have some form of security just in case said working partner dies.

Again I have no problem with the idea of a house spouse but I do have a problem with how house wives are treated in Islamic countries. We have house spouses in the West but said individuals have equal rights and dignity to their working spouses and their working spouses are not given power over the house spouses nor are they allowed to abuse them. In Islam the husband has absolute power over the wife and he can abuse her.

You seem to think that I have a problem with the lifestyle of a house spouse when in reality I have a problem of the abuse that women suffer under Islamic patriarchy.

If being a house husband is what makes you happy then by all means go for it. However realize that atleast you have a choice in the matter. Muslim women usually do not have this choice.

 

[bankside]

Maria I agree with some of your points. I can see what Johann is getting at as well.

On the subject of the choice of other women, or even her own choice, I think you underestimate how little it matters to a woman in a muslim patriarchy who happens to have, by pure chance, most of the things she wants from life. To be taken care of. To act as broodmare for the honour of her husband's family. To spend time with her children. To gossip with illiterate friends. To brave the exhilarating world for a chaperoned shopping trip, peering boldly from within the robust insular comfort of a burka or chador or abaya, or any other cloth sack required to preserve her husband's honour.

It sounds hideous. But if she wants that life, it will not be as much of a hardship. If she wants that life, things will also be much less quarrelsome with the patriarch who owns her. For a woman who lucked out by having society force upon her the choice she would have made anyway, she is likely as indifferent as the patriarchs to the plight of other women who suffer in such a system. Perhaps she is even offended, in her self-absorbed ignorance, that anyone would dare to turn her back on the life in which she finds contentment.

More than one muslim woman will not care about protecting choices for others. I can mock the limits of her vision, but I cannot underestimate her power in shaping the society around her. It's more than victimhood. It's more even than complicity. It's active support for the status quo.

But is it so surprising that a man with a caveman's mentality would take a cavewoman for his wife?

 

[Kulindahr]

Next you need to check your facts as Islam has spread itself by force ever since it has been founded. The countless dead Pagans, Jews and Christians can attest to this. We did not teach them to use force against the world Mohammad taught Muslims this.

But they'd grown out of the habit. With a little friendliness, respect, and luck, we could have kept it that way. Now they're all stirred up again -- because we gave them someone to hate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Something Muslims, especially the women, need to understand:

The Female of the Species
​

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other’s tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthrall but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.​

 

[pat grimshaw]

…Now they're all stirred up again -- because we gave them someone to hate.

Who are you taking about? George Bush invading?

I consider the big issue is that they are spreading around the globe because rich nations want cheap labour

 

[Mariatenebre]

Maria I agree with some of your points. I can see what Johann is getting at as well.

On the subject of the choice of other women, or even her own choice, I think you underestimate how little it matters to a woman in a muslim patriarchy who happens to have, by pure chance, most of the things she wants from life. To be taken care of. To act as broodmare for the honour of her husband's family. To spend time with her children. To gossip with illiterate friends. To brave the exhilarating world for a chaperoned shopping trip, peering boldly from within the robust insular comfort of a burka or chador or abaya, or any other cloth sack required to preserve her husband's honour.

It sounds hideous. But if she wants that life, it will not be as much of a hardship. If she wants that life, things will also be much less quarrelsome with the patriarch who owns her. For a woman who lucked out by having society force upon her the choice she would have made anyway, she is likely as indifferent as the patriarchs to the plight of other women who suffer in such a system. Perhaps she is even offended, in her self-absorbed ignorance, that anyone would dare to turn her back on the life in which she finds contentment.

More than one muslim woman will not care about protecting choices for others. I can mock the limits of her vision, but I cannot underestimate her power in shaping the society around her. It's more than victimhood. It's more even than complicity. It's active support for the status quo.

But is it so surprising that a man with a caveman's mentality would take a cavewoman for his wife?

This is very true. In every patriarchy there is always some traitorous woman aiding the patriarchs in abusing her sisters either by outright action or silence.

 

[KaraBulut]

Next you need to check your facts as Islam has spread itself by force ever since it has been founded.

All of the Abrahamic religions have spread this way. And they all have an asterisk after "Thou shalt not kill*"

*Unless it is a neighboring tribe or someone who lives in a city that you covet.

Judaism is the one of the three that isn't evangelical (it's considered matrilineal).

Religion typically is not the cause for these battles. However, after you lose, you're expected to convert. Whether it be in South America under the Spanish or in the Pontic region and Constantinople under the Ottomans or in Subsaharan Africa in modern times where ethnic groups use religion as a convenient excuse for tribal genocide.

I consider the big issue is that they are spreading around the globe because rich nations want cheap labour

But not because the host country brings in the poorest of the poor and doesn't assimilate them or grant them citizenship?

 

[Mariatenebre]

All of the Abrahamic religions have spread this way. And they all have an asterisk after "Thou shalt not kill*"

*Unless it is a neighboring tribe or someone who lives in a city that you covet.

Judaism is the one of the three that isn't evangelical (it's considered matrilineal).

Religion typically is not the cause for these battles. However, after you lose, you're expected to convert. Whether it be in South America under the Spanish or in the Pontic region and Constantinople under the Ottomans or in Subsaharan Africa in modern times where ethnic groups use religion as a convenient excuse for tribal genocide.




But not because the host country brings in the poorest of the poor and doesn't assimilate them or grant them citizenship?

I am aware that all of the Abrahamic religions spread this way and if you have noticed as a Pagan I am against all of the Abrahamic religions. In general if there is a group of people waging war in the name of religion of practicing the covert or kill method in prosyltizing or war in general they are usually members of the religions of Abraham.

 

[bulge]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f80pNyoL6A[/ame]