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.
Safiyah, the Jewish Wife of Muhammad ( Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims
killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here
is the exact text of the story.)http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/safiyah.htm
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."
It appears that the sexuality of many Muslim men resembles that of pigs, monkies and dogs more than that of civilized males.
I may be being unkind to dogs in saying so. Dogs do not shout "Allahu Akhbar" while humping your leg.