FITNA a film by Geert Wilders and Scarlet Pimpernel

Here

I strongly disagree with three statements that the writer of the Wall Street journal article that follows made:

"Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like 'Fitna,' as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith."

COMMENT: This is so so much bullsht and appeasement of Islamics. Islamics are disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of any faith but the ideology known as Islam.

"The film . . . reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned"

COMMENT: The film contains no such thing. It does not insult the koran, it only reproduces its words and accompanies them with images of the results of carrying out these words.

"I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film)."

COMMENT: There is nothing here to disagree with. The words are from the koran, the images from acts sanctioned by the koran. Nothing more. An excellent, moving film.

AND in this I strongly agree with Mr. Hoekstra:

"While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist 'waiting game,' based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration."

All in all this is an excellent article, except for the portions commented on above, which are based on anticipation of inflammatory material as screamed about by Moslems, not in the film itself.

Islam and Free Speech
By PETER HOEKSTRA
The Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2008; Page A15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Netherlands is bracing for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by "Fitna," a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran -- which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" -- from the Netherlands.

After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders's Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs "On the Dam" if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.

Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.

Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ" -- a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine -- Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.

Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.

The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.

Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.

There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?

Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.

While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration. [Emphasis added and note: This is precisely what happened in Lebanon]

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.

Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah [emphasis added]. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.

A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.

These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

On March 19th, an email sent out by our sister organization, American Congress for Truth, carried a story detailing a proposal made at the recent meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). The proposal calls for a “robust political engagement,” including developing a legal strategy, to stop what the OIC calls “defamation” of Islam.

Our note prefacing the story included the following commentary:

“If leaders of the Muslim nations of the world proceed ahead with such a plan to muzzle any critique or criticism of Islam they deem offensive or defamatory, it is reasonable for freedom-loving people and societies to ask: Can Islam be compatible with freedom? Can freedom-loving societies hope to successfully co-exist with a religious and political ideology that demands that freedom of speech be subordinated to its demands – or else?”

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried the op-ed below, authored by respected Member of Congress Peter Hoekstra. One point he makes is well worth quoting here:

“…free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.”

The right to practice one’s faith in a free society does not and cannot include the right to silence other people who disagree with and/or criticize tenets of that faith. For any religious faith to demand that in a free society is tantamount to demanding the beginning of the end of freedom in that society. Which is precisely why ACT! for America’s mission includes rising in defense of our liberty.

ANOTHER VENUE

Fitna, the censored movie by Geert Wilders that aims to energize the West into fighting back against its mortal enemy.

The movie, which shows the Western world some of the aims and means of its latest mortal enemy, extremist Islam, was banned first by the internet registrar Network Solutions and LiveLeak. The full version can now be seen in full on Arutz Sheva. Arutz Sheva provides this service in order educate the Western world as to the dangers facing non-Muslims and Western democracies all around the world.

The movie ends with a call for Europe to defeat Islamic ideology, just as it defeated the threats of Nazism and Communism in the past.

Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?

THE DISEASE

Muslim males raping non-Muslim women and girls



Swedish victim, Muslim gang rape









THE CURE



Folding Castrating Knife
A very convenient-to-carry, yet effective, castrating instrument made of durable stainless steel. Sharp 2 1/4" blade and 2 1/2" hoe. Folds and fits in your pocket.
#099693 Folding Castrating Knife




















Newberry-Style Castrating Knife
10 1/2" stainless steel construction with interchangeable stainless steel blades. Will split the scrotum for easier removal of testicles.
#099639 Knife

APE Product Description
099637 Replacement Blade (comes with 2 roll-ons)































Castrating Instruments



Castration/Spaying Instruments (32)







































arabic sex move is
sex offence








ADDENDUM


[appended on June 8, 2007]


from fjordman:

Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?

I got some comments, among others from Norwegian blogger Bjørn Stærk, to my posts about the Norwegian government covering up the number of rapes committed by immigrants. The Swedish government is probably even worse, but Sweden is in many ways collapsing. Although he agreed that the statistics should be published, he questioned whether these rapes have anything to do with Islam. It is true that mass rapes of "the enemy's women", in part to humiliate the enemy's men, is not unique to Islam. It has been done at times of war by the Vikings, the Mongols, the Germans and the Russians during WW2, and all the way up to the Balkans in the 1990s. That's also my point. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India. In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with the whites and blacks." In France, grotesque reports about systematic gang rapes of French or "too Western" Muslim girls keep coming in. At the same time, European jails are getting filled up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. You can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That's because they can't, or don't want to, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave. Rape, pillage and bomb.

I disagree that this has nothing to do with Islam. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. And Muslims do follow their medieval religious laws, even today:

Robert Spencer on rape and jihad

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

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.

Go to Fjordman's original post to read "comments" on this subject.

Islamic Danger - Home

PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS ISLAMIYYA

Islamic Sexual Psychopathy -

You hate what you want and cannot have

[Continued from MUSLIM SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHY]


NOTE: To Moslems reading this,

DON'T LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF GIRL

You will get impure thoughts and physical reaction.

This is okay, except that Islam does not allow such thoughts and physical evidence of them.

Imam directions on how to avoid such calamity are given further down below.


Using sexuality to mold warriors for Allah.

There is no better warrior than a young man not allowed to have sex. Angry, frustrated, promised women and girls galore from the defeated enemy, these sexually repressed Moslems, want to kill--and to rape.

That is why gangs of Moslems roam free-world cities, looking for women to rape. The excuse is that these women, not being dressed according to Islamic proscribed fashion, are "asking for it."


Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?

Muslim Rape Wave in Sweden

Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way

Pan-European Arab Muslim Gang Rape Epidemic

Norwegian Authorities Still Covering Up Muslim Rapes

The New York Times and Sweden: The Dark Side of Paradise


These incidents of Moslems attacking and raping free (non-Moslem) women and girls, regarding them as "prostitutes" and halal "meat" for Moslem taking and pleasuring--as encouraged by the Koran, ahadith, and the "exemplary life of the self-proclaimed 'prophet"--a rapist and sexual predator himself--is a disease.

This disease, in certain localities, Scandinavia, Australia, etc., has become an epidemic: Moslem gangs roaming about, looking for free women to rape and brutalize. There is, however, a perfect cure for this disease that has become an epidemic:


The Islamic Disease of Rape and the Perfect Cure




How Mahomet duped his followers

Seems like Allah always gave Mahomet everything he asked for. Strange isn't it, how they always agree, Allah and Mahomet?

Want the adopted son's wife? Why not? It's okay. And then there are the female prisoners of war (down to what age? Hmmmmmmm?)

Sura (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that there was some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism that this "revelation" was meant to assuage.

Read all about

Muhammad's Sex Life


And the Moslems are still buying the bill of goods Mahomet sold to the idiot Arabs who believed that "Allah" was the one talking through him (via Gabriel--the archangel).

Hey, there's a bridge that I've got for you real reasonable here--over the East River going to Brooklyn-- real cheap.


Mahomet had strict rules for the dupes that followed him. No sex with anybody unless you defeat non-Moslems in war. Then you can have the captive women and children of the conquered for sex.

"O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Koran Sura (33:50)



BUT

Look at what he--the so-pure prophet--was doing while the Moslem men that followed him tried to keep from constant masturbation:

Muhammad's Sex Life


Look here

THE nation's[Australia's] most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.

In a Ramadan sermon that has outraged Muslim women leaders, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali also alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes, suggesting the attackers were not entirely to blame.

While not specifically referring to the rapes, brutal attacks on four women for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

"But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he asked....

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "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."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."

Posted by Robert at October 25, 2006 05:5 4 PM Jihad Watch

"The uncovered meat is the problem."





NEW!!!!!

from Dhimmi Watch:

Islam's young men are often sexually insane. Arab moms have this folk idea that if they pull on their little boy's penises it will make it bigger and make them 'manlier' so basically, and I have seen this in both Egypt and Syria - Arab moms masturbate even INFANTS till they are writhing in dry orgasm.

It is done with barely concealed sadism and the battered islamic moms seem to 'worship' and yet in some primordial way hate their sons.

Older men routinely sexually abuse boys and girls and the whole culture is perfaced with intense shame/honor/guilt complexes. Sex is brutal, domineering and fraught with violence.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 22, 2007 12:16 PM at Dhimmi Watch


And . . .

Posted by: Silvester at April 22, 2007 02:39 PM
at Dhimmi Watch

Speaking of segregation, a muslim describes how it creates sex-crazed men in Saudi Arabia:

Former Jihadist Ed Hussain writes from and about Saudi Arabia and sex there:

Faye [my wife] was not immodest in her dress. Out of respect for local custom, she wore the long black abaya and covered her hair in a black scarf. In all the years I had known my wife, never had I seen her appear so dull. Yet on two occasions she was accosted by passing Saudi youths from their cars. On another occasion a man pulled up beside our car and offered her his phone number.

In supermarkets I only had to be away from Faye for five minutes and Saudi men would hiss or whisper obscenities as they walked past. When Faye discussed her experiences with local women at the British Council they said: “Welcome to Saudi Arabia.”

After a month in Jeddah I heard from an Asian taxi driver about a Filipino worker who had brought his new bride to live with him in Jeddah. After visiting the Balad shopping district the couple caught a taxi home. Some way through their journey the Saudi driver complained that the car was not working properly and perhaps the man could help push it. The passenger obliged. Within seconds the Saudi driver had sped off with the man’s wife in his car and, months later, there was still no clue as to her whereabouts.

We had heard stories of the abduction of women from taxis by sex-deprived Saudi youths. At a Saudi friend’s wedding at a luxurious hotel in Jeddah, women dared not step out of their hotel rooms and walk to the banqueting hall for fear of abduction by the bodyguards of a Saudi prince who also happened to be staying there.

Why had the veil and segregation not prevented such behaviour? My Saudi acquaintances, many of them university graduates, argued strongly that, on the contrary, it was the veil and other social norms that were responsible for such widespread sexual frustration among Saudi youth.

At work the British Council introduced free internet access for educational purposes. Within days the students had downloaded the most obscene pornography from sites banned in Saudi Arabia, but easily accessed via the British Council’s satellite connection. Segregation of the sexes, made worse by the veil, had spawned a culture of pent-up sexual frustration that expressed itself in the unhealthiest ways.

Using Bluetooth technology on mobile phones, strangers sent pornographic clips to one another. Many of the clips were recordings of homosexual acts between Saudis and many featured young Saudis in orgies in Lebanon and Egypt. The obsession with sex in Saudi Arabia had reached worrying levels: rape and abuse of both sexes occurred frequently, some cases even reaching the usually censored national press.

My students told me about the day in March 2002 when the Muttawa [the religious police] had forbidden firefighters in Mecca from entering a blazing school building because the girls inside were not wearing veils. Consequently 15 young women burnt to death, but Wahhabism held its head high, claiming that God’s law had been maintained.

As a young Islamist, I organised events at college and in the local community that were strictly segregated and I believed in it. Living in Saudi Arabia, I could see the logical outcome of such segregation.

In my Islamist days we relished stating that Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases were the result of the moral degeneracy of the West. Large numbers of Islamists in Britain hounded prostitutes in Brick Lane and flippantly quoted divorce and abortion rates in Britain. The implication was that Muslim morality was superior. Now, more than ever, I was convinced that this too was Islamist propaganda, designed to undermine the West and inject false confidence in Muslim minds.

I worried whether my observations were idiosyncratic, the musings of a wandering mind. I discussed my troubles with other British Muslims working at the British Council. Jamal, who was of a Wahhabi bent, fully agreed with what I observed and went further. “Ed, my wife wore the veil back home in Britain and even there she did not get as many stares as she gets when we go out here.” Another British Muslim had gone as far as tinting his car windows black in order to prevent young Saudis gaping at his wife.

The problems of Saudi Arabia were not limited to racism and sexual frustration.

Continued at Ed Hussain

How a British jihadi saw the light

From MUSLIM SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHY]

• 23:1,5-6 The believers .... abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
  
  
• 70:29-30,35 And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed, ... Such will be the honoured ones in the Gardens (of Bliss).
  
  

Muhammad can go beyond the four-wife restriction, can treat his own wives and sex slaves unequally

33:50-52 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and God knows (all) that is in your hearts: and God is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and God doth watch over all things.
From MUSLIM SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHY]

Also see
Sexual Manhandling of Women in Egypt

Wahabbis, Sex, History And All That Jazz has this to say (among other interesting stuff):

"Desert Islam is neurotic about sex- and anything remotely suggestive of sex. They believe that men and women, if allowed to mingle freely for even the shortest time, will end up in a sexual embrace. That is why sexual segregation is a fact of life in Universities in the region. In Saudi Arabia, men and women aren't just segregated. They attend different institutions. Interestingly, male teachers are allowed to interact with female students- provided they are in a different room- equipped with a video camera. If a female student has a question, she must use a telephone. Really (see Dr Sanity here, and here. Shrinkwrapped has an excellent post on the subject)."

from Wahabbis, Sex, History And All That Jazz


Also of great interest to Muslim psychopathy is :

SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM

An excerpt from SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM, that most excellent piece, is this quote:

"The Arab world is suffering a crisis of humiliation. Their armies are routed not only by Americans, but also by tiny, Jewish Israel; and as Arthur Koestler once remarked, the Arab world has not, in the last 500 years or so, produced much besides rugs, dirty postcards, elaborations on the belly-dance esthetic (and, of course, some innovative terrorist practices). They have no science to speak of, no art, hardly any industry save oil, very little literature, and portentous music which consists largely of lugubrious songs celebrating the slaughter of Jews.

"Now that the Arabs have acquired national consciousness, and they compare their societies to other nations, these deficiencies become painfully evident, particularly to the upper-class Arab kids who attend foreign universities. There they learn about the accomplishments of Christians, Jews, (Freud, Einstein, for starters) and women. And yet, with the exception of Edward Said, there is scarcely a contemporary Arab name in the bunch. No wonder, then, that major recruitment to al-Qaeda's ranks takes place among Arab university students. And no wonder that suicide bombing becomes their tactic of choice: it is a last-ditch, desperate way of asserting at least one scrap of superiority—a spiritual superiority—over the materialistic, life-hugging, and ergo shameful West.

But this tactic is not, I suggest, a product of Islam. Rather, it is a product of the bruised Arab psyche. . . . "

* * *

"Arab women are elected for the special role of the inferior who, by definition, lacks honor. Arab men eradicate shame and bolster their shaky self-esteem by imposing the shameful qualities of the dhimmi, submission and passivity, upon women. Trailing a humbled woman behind them, Arab men can walk the walk of the true macho man.

"Hence the relative lack of material achievement by Arabs: the Arab world has stunted the female half of its brain pool, while the men acquire instant self-esteem not by real accomplishment, but by the mere fact of being men, rather than women. No wonder, then, that the Arab nations feel irrationally threatened by the very existence of Israel. Like America, the Jews have brought the reality of the liberated woman into the very heart of the Middle East, into dar al-Islam itself. Big Satan and Little Satan: the champions of Muslim women."

The foregoing is a quote by Dr. Sanity from Saving Arabs From Themselves by Dr. Leo Gutmann



Muslim men and their Masculinity


In his Yes This IS Islam Dr. Sanity tells us about a . . .

. . . 14 year old girl, abducted and raped by an adult male, who on her rescue and return to her family was brutally murdered by her father for "shaming" the family.


[We ask:]

Why are Muslim Men . . .

. . . raging, dysfunctional . . . shaky about their masculinity . . . ?

Dr. Sanity says:

. . . over and over again we hear the refrain that the behavior of muslim men toward muslim women is "not" Islam. That it is contrary to "real" Islam (despite the manuals issued by imams on how to beat a wife or daughter so that it doesn't "show"). We even witness the apologists among the women who claim that covering themselves is their "choice" and allows them to be who they "really are".

Frankly, this bullshit is beginning to make me sick. I have no problem with such muslim women apologists wearing whatever they want. But their perspective would be ever so much more persuasive if women who choose NOT to have their individual identities submerged under a shapeless, formless and oppressive religion, were not murdered so frequently by raging, dysfunctional men, shaky about their masculinity."

--from This IS Islam


End of NEW



And here is the promised

Masturbation (How to Cure yourself of It)
by some Imam or other

(brought back by popular demand)

Listen to the Imam:

The person involved in [self-]masturbation is almost certainly a victim of evil gazes. It is
thus imperative to strictly guard the gaze. Where it is practical, avoid all such situations
where ones gaze may fall on Ghayr Mahram females (women not prohibited in Nikah).
TV, books, magazines, internet, newspapers, should be shunned.

Should one's gaze accidentally fall on some woman, immediately lower the gaze. This is
not difficult. It only requires some courage and training….

By maintaining the gaze, one is in fact moving to the depths of Jahannum (hell). And by
lowering the gaze, one is ascending to the highest ranks of Jannah [heaven]….

Consider the reality of the woman at whom one is gazing. If she does not groom herself
or apply perfume for one day, she will look dreadful and stink. For a number of days
every month she has impurity pouring out of her. If one had to just go near such impurity,
one will wish to flee. Imagine if she went to the toilet and forgot to flush and, if you had to
enter the toilet, will you still have the desire to gaze on her? If this woman does not have
Deen, then by raising her arms and exposing her unsightly arm pits, she will give out the
smell of a skunk. These are some thoughts (although undignified) which will assist one in
taming the evil desire to look at women….

Try as far as possible to remain in the state of Wudhu. In the Hadith we are informed that
Wudhu is the weapon of Mu'min. With this weapon it is much easier for him to thwart the
onslaughts of Shaytaan….

Try to remain in the company of the true friends of Allah Ta'ala. The true friends are
those that, when you sit with them they remind you of Allah Ta'ala and their company
produces a desire for the Aakhirah (hereafter). The company of such people is extremely
effacious in imbuing the obedience of Allah Ta'ala, and in cultivating an abhorrence of
sin….

May Allah Ta'ala save you and every Ummati from this evil, Aameen.

And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best.

[NOTE: The above anti-masturbation instructions are taken from Naked Islam]

Also be sure to check out SEX SELLS - ALWAYS DID, ALWAYS WILL

How to Discourage these Sexual Predators--the Moslem Rapists




For For further--and more detailed--instructions, please go to:

The Islamic Disease of Rape and the Perfect Cure

which is now reproduced below below:

THE DISEASE

Muslim males raping non-Muslim women and girls



Swedish victim, Muslim gang rape

THE CURE



Folding Castrating Knife
A very convenient-to-carry, yet effective, castrating instrument made of durable stainless steel. Sharp 2 1/4" blade and 2 1/2" hoe. Folds and fits in your pocket.
#099693 Folding Castrating Knife













Newberry-Style Castrating Knife
10 1/2" stainless steel construction with interchangeable stainless steel blades. Will split the scrotum for easier removal of testicles.
#099639 Knife

APE Product Description
099637 Replacement Blade (comes with 2 roll-ons)

















Castrating Instruments
Castration/Spaying Instruments (32)
















ADDENDUM
from fjordman:
Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?
I got some comments, among others from Norwegian blogger Bjørn Stærk, to my posts about the Norwegian government covering up the number of rapes committed by immigrants. The Swedish government is probably even worse, but Sweden is in many ways collapsing. Although he agreed that the statistics should be published, he questioned whether these rapes have anything to do with Islam. It is true that mass rapes of "the enemy's women", in part to humiliate the enemy's men, is not unique to Islam. It has been done at times of war by the Vikings, the Mongols, the Germans and the Russians during WW2, and all the way up to the Balkans in the 1990s. That's also my point. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India. In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with the whites and blacks." In France, grotesque reports about systematic gang rapes of French or "too Western" Muslim girls keep coming in. At the same time, European jails are getting filled up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. You can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That's because they can't, or don't want to, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave. Rape, pillage and bomb.

I disagree that this has nothing to do with Islam. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. And Muslims do follow their medieval religious laws, even today:

Robert Spencer on rape and jihad

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

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.

Go to Fjordman's original post to read "comments" on this subject.
ALSO be sure to look at http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/19/muslim-woman/

MUSLIM SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHY

"Bear in mind that [Sayyid] Qutb was a life-long bachelor, noted for his sickly, pale appearance and introverted personality and there is no evidence of his ever having had a sexual relationship. (source: Hamudah, Sayyid Qutb p.60-61),
Amrika allati Ra'aytu, (America that I Saw), quoted in All Things Considered, May 6, 2003
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796 "


Sayyid Qutb (IPA pronunciation: 'saɪjɪd 'qʊtb) ((also Seyyid, Sayid, Sayed; also Koteb, Kutb) (Arabic: سيد قطب‎; 9 October 1906^[1] – 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian intellectual author, and Islamist associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He is best known for his theoretical work on redefining the role of Islamic fundamentalism in social and political change, particularly in his books Social Justice and Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). His extensive Quranic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the shades of the Qur'an) has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and ummah.

Qutb's personal life was not always happy. Though Islam gave him much peace and contentment,^[2] he suffered from respiratory and other health problems throughout his life and was known for "his introvertedness, isolation, depression and concern." In appearance, he was "pale with sleepy eyes."^[3] Qutb never married, in part because of his steadfast religious convictions. While the urban Egyptian society he lived in was becoming more Westernized, Qutb believed the Quran (Surat al-Nisa, 4:32) taught women that `Men are the managers of women's affairs ...' ^[4] Qutb lamented to his readers that he was never able to find a woman of sufficient "moral purity and discretion" and had to reconcile himself to bachelorhood. ^[5]

Qutb was extremely critical of many things in the United States, its racism, materialism, individual freedom, economic system, poor haircuts,^[6] triviality, restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (which went on even in churches),^[7] and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle. In an article published in Egypt after his travels, he noted with disapproval the sexuality of Americans:

the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it. ^[8]

And their taste in music :

Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires ... ^[9]

. . . Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and shocking. His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s^[10] and became editor-in-chief of the Brothers' weekly Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin, and later head of the propaganda section, as well as an appointed member of the Working Committee and of the Guidance Council, the highest branch in the Brotherhood. ^[11]

Qutb's loathing of the West goes well beyond hatred of imperialism or materialism. To Qutb, Europe and North America are "backward," a "rubbish heap ... filth ... hollow and worthless" (p.139, 136). [15] They have nothing to offer the Muslim world. Though aware that Western Civilization possesses nothing "which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence" (p.7), the West is pursuing a "well-thought-out scheme" to "demolish the structure of Muslim society," (p.116) which, unlike the West, can "justify its existence."

Western society is immoral...

Look at this capitalism with its monopolies, its usury and whatever else is unjust in it; at this individual freedom, devoid of human sympathy and responsibility for relatives except under the force of law; at this materialistic attitude which deadens the spirit; at this behavior, like animals, which you call `free mixing of the sexes;` [16] at this vulgarity which you call `emancipation of women;` at these unfair and cumbersome laws of marriage and divorce, which are contrary to the demands of practical life; and at Islam, with its logic, beauty, humanity and happiness ... these facts, when seen in the light of Islam made the American people blush. Yet there are people -- exponent of Islam -- who are defeated before this filth ... they search for resemblances to Islam among this rubbish heap of the West ... [p.139]

[16] At a time when an overwhelming number of Americans married as virgins or only had premarital sex with their future spouse,
[source: for example over 80% of the women surveyed who were born between 1933 and 1942 either had no premarital intercourse or premarital intercourse only with their future husband, according to the National Health and Social Life Survey (Sex in America : A definitive Survey by Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, Gina Kolata, Little Brown and Co., 1994)],
Qutb sputtered "at this behavior, like animals, which you call `free mixing of the sexes.`"

How did he get the idea that the Western, in this case American, sexual behavior he witnessed was animal-like? Likely in part from his own psychological projections. He describes the "American girl" as being

well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it.

(Bear in mind that Qutb was a life-long bachelor, noted for his sickly, pale appearance and introverted personality and there is no evidence of his ever having had a sexual relationship. (source: Hamudah, Sayyid Qutb p.60-61),
Amrika allati Ra'aytu, (America that I Saw), quoted in All Things Considered, May 6, 2003
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796 ))

Maybe also from an encounter with "a young American women at the [educational] institute in Greeley, CO," who allegedly told an appalled Qutb that

The issue of sexual relations is purely a biological matter. You ... complicate this matter by imposing the ethical element on it. The horse and mare, the bull and the cow ... do not think about this ethical matter ... and, therefore live a comfortable, simple, and easy life. (from Amrika allati Ra'aytu, (America that I Saw), quoted in Radical Islamic Fundamentalism: the Ideological and Political Discourse of Sayyid Qutb by Ahmad S. Moussalli, American University of Beirut, 1992, p.29)

Obviously most Americans, especially in conservative post-war America, did not/would not agree with this. What Qutb passed on to thousands, perhaps eventually hundreds of thousands, of Muslims as the typical American attitude seems far more likely to have been either fiction or an undergrad's attempt to freak-out this uptight, middle-aged foreigner, his pious disapproval intensified by her "body's seductive capacity."

from
http://www.bahai-faith.com/islam-uncensored.html

Men can marry up to four women if they treat them equally; unlimited forcible concubines permitted

In Islam, not only are men allowed to practice polygamy, but they may also capture women in war and use them as sex slaves. This is considered morally legitimate according to the Quran. In other words, non-Muslim women have no right to be free from the horror of slavery and serial rape by Muslim military men.

• 4:3 Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
  
  
• 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess
  
  
• 4:25 If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess
  
  
• 23:1,5-6 The believers .... abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
  
  
• 70:29-30,35 And those who guard their chastity, Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed, ... Such will be the honoured ones in the Gardens (of Bliss).
  

Muhammad can go beyond the four-wife restriction, can treat his own wives and sex slaves unequally

• 33:50-52 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and God knows (all) that is in your hearts: and God is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and God doth watch over all things.
  

Nobody can marry Muhammad's widows after he is dead

• 33:53 And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should... marry his [Muhammad's] widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in God's sight an enormity.
  

Muhammad's wives should stay in their houses

• 33:32-33 O Consorts of the Prophet! ... stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;
  

Muhammad decides to marry his adopted son's wife, despite objections

The prophet Muhammad forced his adopted son, Zaid, to divorce his wife so that Muhammad could marry her. This was scandalous for the community, but Muhammad claimed he did this because God told him to, and he told the Muslims they had no right to question his decisions. Most people thought the real reason was because Muhammad lusted after a married woman and used his authority over the community to do whatever he desired, which seems like a more likely explanation.

• 33:36-39 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Apostle to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear God." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which God was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear God. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee [Muhammad]: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And God's command must be fulfilled. There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what God has indicated to him as a duty. It was the practice (approved) of God amongst those of old that have passed away. And the command of God is a decree determined. (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages of God, and fear Him, and fear none but God. And enough is God to call (men) to account.
  

Muhammad can divorce his wives whenever he wants and get new ones who are more submissive

• 66:1-5 O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. God has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and God is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and God made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, "Who told thee this? "He said, "He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)." If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly God is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up. It may be, if he divorced you (all), that God will give him in exchange consorts better than you,- who submit (their wills), who believe, who are devout, who turn to God in repentance, who worship (in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast,- previously married or virgins.
  

"Lewd" women should be punished with life imprisonment

• 4:15 If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.
  
  It is unclear what "lewdness" actually means. This verse is so open-ended, almost any woman could potentially be accused of lewdness and sentenced to a life of house arrest, except ultraconservative women who never do anything to offend strict Muslim men.
  

Husbands should beat disobedient wives

• 4:34 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).
  
  Note: parenthetical insertions make this verse sound less harsh than it really is in more literal translations. For example, the original Arabic text does not say to beat wives "lightly" -- just to beat them.
  

Stealing should be punished by amputation of hands

• 5:41 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: and God is Exalted in power.
  
  When a person has no hands, they probably cannot earn a living anymore, so they will end up as a beggar on the street. That doesn't seem very beneficial to society. Also, before medical sanitation and anesthesia, amputation of the hands was in many cases the equivalent of a death sentence.
  

Adultery and fornication must be punished by flogging with a hundred stripes

• 24:2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
  
  This verse leaves no other option for Muslims who believe in the divine origin of the Quran. It specifically says they must not have mercy on people who have committed adultery or fornication, and that this brutal punishment of 100 lashes is "prescribed by God." However, since other verses in the Quran specifically allow men to have sex slaves, the horrible crime of serial rape against a non-Muslim woman is not considered adultery or fornication and would not be punished if the woman is considered a concubine.
  

People who have committed adultery or fornication lose the right to marry chaste Muslims

• 24:3 Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.
  

Anyone who falsely accuses a chaste woman should be flogged with eighty stripes

• 24:4-5 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;- Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for God is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
  

Women should wear veils outside the home

• 24:30-31 Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And God is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards God, that ye may attain Bliss.
  

Coverings should be worn by women in open society to prevent molestation (except the elderly)

• 33:59 O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And God is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
  
  
• 24:60 Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage,- there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not a wanton display of their beauty: but it is best for them to be modest: and God is One Who sees and knows all things.
  
  It is unclear what exactly these "outer garments" are or how completely they are supposed to cover the woman's body, but restrictive garments such as the Afghan burqa would certainly be in accordance with the Quran, and probably originated because of these Quranic verses.
  

Some people are mischief-makers but don't realize it

Let's end with this interesting verse:

• 2:11-12 When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!" Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.
  
  This verse is very ironic. The mischief-makers in this verse sound a lot like what Muslims say today: "Islam is a religion of peace!" they insist, while Muslim fundamentalists around the world are practicing terrorism, fighting wars in the name of Islam, violating people's basic human rights and abusing women according to the teachings of the Quran.

Atta's Rage Rooted in Islam's Misogyny

By Jamie Glazov

Source: FrontPageMagazine.com
October 12, 2001

PHOTO: Reuters


MOHAMMED ATTA, the terrorist involved in the September 11 crime against humanity, left behind an illuminating will. He sternly warned against women being present at his funeral – or at his grave at any later date. He also instructed that: "He who washes my body around my genitals should wear gloves so that I am not touched there."
Atta obviously had a lot of problems.

But far from being the testament of an alienated madman, Atta’s will directly reflects the deep-rooted misogyny within Islam itself. And it is misogyny, and all the self-contempt and rage that it nurtures in males, that fertilized the soil in which the pernicious evil of Atta – and of his colleagues -- grew.

In Woman in the Muslim Unconscious, Moroccan scholar Fatna Sabbah documents how the crucial criteria of female "beauty" in Islamic society are silence, immobility, and obedience. Women are supposed to dehumanize themselves in order to be tolerated.

In Islam, males are taught to control desire (shahwa). Women are the incarnation of shahwa. Shahwa comes from the devil. It becomes clear, therefore, why the association of shahwa, the devil and woman is rife throughout Islamic religious literature.

Imam Ibn al-Jawzi taught that female beauty was a manifestation of the devil himself. In his text Dhamm al-hawa, he wrote that the "beauty of women is one of the poisoned arrows of the devil." It is no wonder, therefore, why Islam teaches that hell is largely populated by women. According to a hadith (the record of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad) in Imam Bukhari’s Al-Sahih, the Prophet Muhammad states that, as he stood at the gate of hell, he observed that, "Most of those who entered there were women."

In Islam, sex is allowed only in marriage, but even then it is not viewed as an act between two complementary and equal human beings. It is an act concerning only the orgasmic need of the male. Since this need is prioritized, Islam allows the male to marry four wives at a time. The male can also go through serial marriages, since he is allowed to dissolve a marriage unilaterally at any time by simply saying to his wife: "you are repudiated."

Thus, a man does not have to invest in one woman. The concept of "the couple" is shattered; the individual woman is seen as useless and expendable. The confusion in which Middle Eastern boys grow up, therefore, is a given. With all kinds of siblings born of different women -- who obviously weren’t good enough to be cherished alone –- the boys get their first taste of misogyny and, therefore, self-hate (since they internalize the notion that their own mothers were valueless).

Since it emphasizes the importance of Muslims conquering all non-Muslims, Islam bestows some intriguing sexual incentives. While it is a sin for a male to have sex with an unmarried woman, Allah makes an exemption for the Muslim male who rapes the women of the infidels that he kills. Muhammad did just that.

This explains why any time Islamic warriors defeat another nation, they call the inhabitants kafir (the one who, according to the Qur'an, is ungrateful to the blessings showered by Allah) and rape their women. Pakistani Muslim soldiers raped a quarter of a million Bangali women in 1971 after they massacred 3 million unarmed civilians. This atrocity is not considered a sin in Islam, because the religious leader of the soldiers decreed that Bangladeshis were infidels.

The Islamic temptation to wage violent war against non-Muslims also involves the sexual incentive of the houries (the 72 eternal virgins in paradise that are given to the Muslim warrior who dies in battle). The houri makes earthly women even more redundant. Yet even the individual houri herself is not sacred or special in any way. As Fatna Sabbah notes, she "has no spiritual dimension; she is a thing because she has neither will nor any possibility of development. . . . [she] has no intellect; she does not think. She is a thing that awaits consumption."

The houri is a manifestation of the ultimate misogyny.

In thinking about Atta’s will in this context, his worries become understandable. So does his rage. A male cannot despise women and simultaneously love himself. Misogyny is the ultimate death wish.

Men like Atta and Osama bin Laden detest – and wish to destroy – the world that they see outside their cages. It is a world that delights in the beauty that they have demonized -- outside and inside of themselves.



ALL SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children. The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.
When sociopaths rape and kill, they do not see their victims as human beings, but only as objects. This is because the sociopaths were themselves, at one time, used as objects - as their bodily integrity was repeatedly violated. The rage that results from sexual abuse is one thing, but when combined with living in a dysfunctional culture of sexual repression and misogyny, where love is reduced to violent domination, it is quite another.

Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehemently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety. Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them. Sex before marriage is not just a sin -- but a criminal offence. It is punishable by a severe beating at best, and an execution at worst.

The sexual privileges that are allowed in Islamic cultures are permitted to men. Women's sexuality and social independence represent major threats to male supremacy and are tightly controlled. Thus, as the Moroccan feminist Fitna Sabbah reveals in her book Woman in the Muslim Unconscious, there is a disturbing conflict in the Middle East between sexual libido and repression. A deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main expression exists in misogyny.

Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.

In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.

There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.

The problem is that trying to recover from sexual abuse, and to recapture one's own shattered masculinity, is quite an ordeal in a culture where women are hated and love is interpreted as hegemonic control.

With women out of touch - and out of sight -- until marriage, males experience pre-marital sex only in the confines of being with other males. Their sexual outlet mostly includes victimizing younger males - just the way they were victimized.

In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence. A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture. They threaten the hyper-masculine order.

It is excruciating to imagine the sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that evolve in the mindsets of males in this culture. But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs - as theirs once was.

Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him. In the recent terrorist strikes, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists' bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate and pathological testament of the re-masculinization of their emasculated selves


The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com, October 4, 2001


Roya Tolouee’s Ordeal
by Showan Khurshid

09 June, 2006

What happened to Ms Tolouee is part and parcel of what happens to thousands of other women in Islamic countries, who are subject to degrading treatment, homicide, in the name of honour, and genital mutilation. These acts may happen elsewhere within other cultures, but the perpetrators in civilised societies are regarded as criminals and investigation follows. We do not hear of any investigations in the Islamic countries regarding abuse of power and violations against women. The Islamic regime of Iran has been known for using sexual abuse as a means of interrogation, yet no public enquiry has been conducted to investigate. The predicament of women should be expected as Islam allows no more than an inferior position for women.[1] More degradingly, Islam allows sexual acts with the womenfolk of conquered people. Ironically, “Allah the merciful” who seems to be obsessed with Mohammed’s sexuality, tells Mohammed that prisoners of war are lawful for him.[2] So all what a criminal needs in order to excuse sexual violation is to regard a helpless woman as non-Muslim. The fact that the Sunnis and Shiites can so easily deny that the other side being Muslims makes it very likely that Ms Tolouee was told that she is not Muslim. This is not in fact a one off incidence. Talaban committed the same acts against Hazara women. Moqtada Sadre’s thugs were doing the same in Southern Iraq. Iraqi army and Arab militia during Saddam did the same in South Kurdistan. Some Kurdish women were even sold to Egypt and Sudan. The same thing is still happening in Darfur.

One should have no illusion that women’s position in Islam is any better than sex objects, and vessels of recreation, although, at best, a private sex object which explains why they have to be hidden and veiled.[3]

Muslim apologists may deny this argument, but the verses in the endnotes below make that clear.[4] The situation of Muslims and Islam is also due to the fact that there is no concept of human rights in Islam. People are not allowed to doubt Islam, or convert away from Islam (read what the “revered” Muslim scholar, who was invited by Ken Livingston, Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has to say). When violence is allowed the violent cunning psychopath individuals or groups prevail. This pattern is repeated in the history of Islam, communism where Stalin could prevail over Trotsky and Saddam over his other rivals who were to some degree less criminally-minded than himself.

Ms Tolouee’s ordeal is also a part of same pattern that the tribes and ethnicities have experienced and will experience who are subjected to Islam. For hundreds of years , the Kurds, their weakness stemming from the fact that their land-locked terrain does not allow massive concentration of population with concentration of power, where even a small band of men can defy the authorities, have been subjected to unending campaigns to destroy their autonomous political structure.

The evolutionary political theory suggests that the application of all ideologies can result in atrocities being committed. Simply, Islam and other ideologies have no built-in measures to ensure that the strong will not oppress and even annihilate the weak. Thus it is natural that the weak nation and the weak gender and even the weak section of society fall victim so easily to the strong and the manipulative.[5] However, Islam is particularly uncivilised. What else can we extrapolate from a religion that disdains art, and a religion whose prophet demands that the fifth of the spoils should be his, and that he allowed sex with female prisoners of war.[6] Would not disdaining arts breed a vulgar nation and would not such incentive fuel an army of thugs and criminals? Indeed, Muslims and Mohammed before other Islamic leaders, as historians know, used mercenaries.

Now while I hope that Ms Tolouee finds strengths in herself to endure the trauma of her ordeal. She should only think that she has not been disgraced at all. She is a victim like all Kurds, whether Muslims or not. Indeed, she is a victim like all humanity, who are suffering or will be suffering because of this religion, and particularly because of some selfish interests of sociopaths like Ahmedinijad or Khomeini, and many other brainwashed individuals, trying to impose this uncivilised religion upon us. Such acts, which does not draw any protest at all from Muslims, should be a call for all people who care about morality and human decency to abandon this religion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] ‘Men Have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme’ (The Koran 4:34, p. 83).

See also the respect for women in Islam:

‘They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness. Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)’ (Pickthal, The quran 2:222 &223).
If anyone has a doubt as to the origin of hijab or veil read this verse.
‘O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful’ (Pickthal, The quran, 33:59).

[2]‘O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful’ ((The Koran, Pickthal, 33:50).

[3]Nowadays sex has a dirty connotation in the mind of Muslims that is why in southern Iraq when a man mentions women while talking with other men, he apologises first in the same manner one talks about animals like dogs and donkeys or dirty things.

[4] It is true that Quran contains some verses suggesting kind treatment of women. But these do not sound veracious or at best very circumscribed. How else can some allow taking women as spoil of war and then talk of respect to them?

[5] This is the reason that the Darfurians who are killed, displaced and raped, though, Muslims are completely ignored – the Arab League to culminate its insolence convened in Khartoum as a sign of further support for the Arab regime, even the Kurdish the Iraqi Kurdish foreign minister did not express a qualm about attending the meeting there.

[6] ‘They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers’ (Pickthal: Quran, 8:1).

Showan Khurshid is the author of : "Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics: A Political Theory based on the Evolutionary Theory" which can be purchased here
about Muhammad’s sadism.
Bukhari 7, 71.589

"Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of Medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk." But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away his camels. The Prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died."

But that is not all. Your Allah is also a sadist. Take a look:

4.56 Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Isn’t this sadism?

Again you put your foot in your mouth when you throw in sadism. Islam is sadism. It is a cult created by a sadist psychopath.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/YaminZakariap5.htm


Pedophilia: You either forgot or intentionally did not talk about this mental disease. This happens also in the West and the tolerance of the Westerners towards it is inexistence. The pedophiles are hunted down and locked up to protect the children. However you conveniently did not mention it because pedophilia is not a crime in Islamic world at all. Many men have pedophilic relations with young boys and marrying children is also a sunnah. In fact pedophilia in Islam is so normal that Muhammad in his sick way of thinking promised "pearly boys" to his faithful followers. The thought of that is sickening but the fact that Muhammad makes it part of the heavenly rewards shows he thought is it something pleasurable.

52:24 Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them. Youths (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.


وَيَطُوفُ عَلَيْهِمْ غِلْمَانٌ لَّهُمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ لُؤْلُؤٌ مَّكْنُونٌ


A 20 year old girl was going out with her sister to do some shopping, they live in al-E?lam district in Baghdad. Here sister notices that she has forgotten a purse or something so she goes back and leaves the older sister on the main street on her own, when she gets back older sister is nowhere to be found. Two days later the family gets a phone call from the local police station telling them that there is a girl here they should come pick up. The kidnappers, it seems, after they had what they wanted just threw her off at the police station. She has bruises all over her body, she was returned without her veil and her mother talks with hushed tones of r.a.p.e. She had just been married one month ago and now the husband won?t even come see her. He is throwing her away. The girl screams whenever someone touches her, when the lights go off or on, when someone talks loudly. Not only has the girl been brutally violated now her family shunts her and keep her locked in the house. She brings shame open them through her rape, no one thinks of what she has gone through. (Salam Paz)
With these religious psychopaths, it's all projection.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/09/portrait_of_a_r.php

See these related articles:
The Childhood Origins of Terrorism, Lloyd deMause
The Wellsprings of Horror in the Cradle, Alice Miller
The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror, Jamie Glazov
-->The School for Violence, Riane Eisler.
Yes, This Is About Islam, Salman Rushdie
Afghan Boy Gets Lesson in Manhood, Philip Caputo.