Defense Issues

Military and general security

Islam Rape Kit

Posted by Picard578 on August 16, 2015

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Islam contains an ideological rape kit. Sacred texts of Islam clearly state that “those that your right hand possess” (that is, slaves) can be sexually exploited. Slaves are obtained in battle. Devout Muslims are enjoined to practice as the Qur’an enjoins to do. The New York Times, in an harrowing description of systematic raping of children by Muslim warriors, is finally waking up to these facts. See:

Just As The Moon, A Pre-Islamist Religion, Rules Over Islam, So Does Abominable Sexism Just As The Moon, A Pre-Islamist Religion, Rules Over Islam, So Does Abominable Sexism

Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”
This is one of several verses “from Allah” which say that the limit of four wives to have sex with does NOT apply to slaves:

Qur’an (23:5-6)…

View original post 1,099 more words


21 Responses to “Islam Rape Kit”

  1. Thanks for reblogging my essay! 😉

    • picard578 said

      No problem. It really was worth reblogging, keep it up ;-).

      • Thanks picard578 (or Paul?)! There was a typo at some point which was just pointed out to me.
        A passage ought to have read:
        It is often said that Islam promotes equality: nothing is further from the truth. Christians and Jews, where and when tolerated had to pay a tax, wear distinct marks on their clothing, and to be killed if having sex with Muslim women. “Non-believers” and “apostates” have to be killed too.

  2. Jungibaaz said

    Hey Picard,

    It’s your friend from the forum.
    I’ve been reading your work on and off since we last talked on the forum, your updates I often receive, it’s sad to see you falling for this sort of propaganda, some ounce of truth it may have in it, but nothing so broad or conclusive or non falsifiable.

    Anywhere, you know where to look for me if we should like to have those old debates of ours.


    • picard578 said

      I know. But I have a Qur’an PDF, so while I didn’t check this post of hers specifically, in the past she never actually made up quotes. That being said, I have noticed that Qur’an seems to jump in its own mouth quite a bit. And like a Bible, it is in most part a reflection of the times and society it was written in.

      • BoneSaw said

        Are you reading it with tafsir though? That’s the most important part.

      • Andrei said

        “Are you reading it with tafsir though? That’s the most important part.”

        That is a very dangerous thing: being incapable of interpreting one own religious text, and needing someone else to do it. That explains a lot about modern Islam and how the Taliban and ISIL and other fundamentalist terrorist organizations can exist. One “learned” man with an agenda gives his own tafsir and his followers don’t bother to think or interpret the text by themselves, through their own morals. It’s how the Crusades got started in the Middle Ages: priests would interpret the bible the way they wanted, and the people didn’t question them because they didn’t know how tot read. I see Islam has picked up only the bad habits from Christianity. But at least medieval Christians had an excuse, they were illiterate. But Muslims fundamentalists don’t have that excuse most of them know how to read at least.

      • FatLeo said

        “That is a very dangerous thing: being incapable of interpreting one own religious text, and needing someone else to do it.”
        Sounds like a typical abrahamic religion. Almost all of them are incapable of of interpreting their own religious texts and almost all of them use their religion as a weapon.
        Also – others: Buddhism, Shinto (while it was Official State Religion in Imperial Japan) and so forth.

        • picard578 said

          That is because texts are quite cultire- and age- -specific. To actually understand Jesus’ words, for example, you have to understand cultural context in which those world were spoken. But problem is that many, if not most, of those doing the interpretation don’t understand it either, or simply don’t care. End result: you get all kinds of crap.

      • FatLeo said

        The best sort of believer, funnily enough, is the one that doesn’t take his religion literally. Or serious.

  3. Luis said

    Incidentally, those believers who say that their holy text was written for a specific historical period and that it reflects the cultural and moral values of the time end up theologically shooting themselves in the foot: they want to claim that the text is “divinely ordained” and that there are “eternal ethical truths” that derive from God, yet somehow God himself was beholden to the cultural values of his creations when he commanded them to wipe out enemy tribes or to enslave them! If God had actually ordained any of these texts, you’d think he could at least tell his followers not to rape women, not to enslave people, not to take child brides and so forth. Funny how the interests of creepy old men are so consistently reflected in these texts. If God exists and he indeed inspired any of these religions, then we are left with the inevitable conclusion that he is himself a diseased lecher.

    • picard578 said

      Religious texts were written by people. That is why we have flat Earth, 7-day creation and so on. Only commands in Bible that are explicitly God’s word are the Seven Commandments and Jesus’ teachings, plus (very) few others. And these are rather consistent in their overall message.

      Mohammed himself never received anything from God. He just picked and chose things he liked from Christianity and Judaism. And Christianity itself seems to have influences from far-East religions.

      • FatLeo said

        Eh, Christianity was immensely influenced by Roman Imperial Cult and Mithraic Mysteries.
        All abrahamic religions are syncretic. There’s nothing new and original about any of them.
        It’s pick-and-choose hack job, using various sources.

  4. Chris said

    I wonder if ISIS own actions will turn away people who might otherwise have been more sympathetic in the long run. Their fundamentalism seems to have hurt their standing certainly amongst the more moderate people who obey not out of any desire to fight with ISIS, but fear. Others only join because they see no alternative than the corrupt Iraqi government.

    Religion has been used to justify some pretty awful things though. That seems true across multiple faiths and cultures. Not saying secularism is 100% good – it’s just that it becomes a cover for the worst of human nature.

    • picard578 said

      Humans are quite fucked up, and will use (have used) anything as an excuse to do crap. Religion, democracy, freedom, human rights, social / economical development… all of that has been used in the past as an excuse for rather hard-to-imagine things. But cause was always profit, nothing more, nothing less. Getting rid of religion will change nothing, except that a new set of excuses will appear.

      • Chris said

        Capitalism already has in many ways.

        That and in the US religion is being used as a rationale for capitalism. Protestants and even many Catholics in the Southern US seem to see no contradiction between capitalism and their religion, which I find rather bizarre. There is a lot of anti-Pope sentiment in the US apparently due to his words.

    • Luis said

      Incidentally, I think this is important for understanding the context that has allowed a group like ISIS to gain so much ground:

      One really has to wonder at a government whose military is bestowed with 25 billion dollars of US equipment and training (someone please correct me if I have that figure wrong) and still utterly collapses in the face of a few thousand fanatics. It seems to be in the nature of imperialism that it must continually prop up forces that later turnout to be quite worthless even from the standpoint of serving its own narrow self-interests. The forces backed by the US, for example, are opportunist scum in the form of Malaki and his cronies; but, of course, they HAVE TO BE opportunist scum because these are the only forces willing to sell themselves to imperialism against the interests of their own people. And opportunists are, by definition, unreliable.

      • FatLeo said

        Rumour has it that a number of Iraqi generals and Peshmerga officers were actually bribed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
        But yes, imperialist stooges are rarely reliable: ARVN, Afghan National Army and so forth.

  5. abcdefg said

    This whole article is completely unserious. And it is in no way in line with the original article of the NYT!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: