Of Burkas and Babes

moaishaby Glenn Fairman   1/13/14
Trolling through Drudge a day or so ago, I caught hold of a headline that piqued my curiosity entitled “Burka Babies.” Having an inquiring mind that is not immune to sensationalist headlines or the National Enquirer racks at the market, I bit on the following news story from Al Arabiya:

A Saudi cleric has called for all female babies to be fully covered by wearing the face veil, commonly known as the burka, citing reports of little girls being sexually molested.

In a TV interview on the Islamic al-Majd TV, which seems to date back to mid-last year, Sheikh Abdullah Dauod, stressed that wearing the veil will protect baby girls. The Sheikh tried to back his assertion with claims of sexual molestation against babies in the kingdom, quoting unnamed medical and security sources.

….Sheikh Mohammad al-Jzlana, former judge at the Saudi Board of Grievances, told Al Arabiya that Dauod’s ruling was denigrating to Islam and Shariah and made Islam look bad.

He said that he feels sad whenever he sees a family walking around with a veiled baby, describing that as injustice to children.

As it turns out, this Saudi Cleric was viewed as a form of extreme nut case, even by fundamentalist standards; and the majority of the faithful had decreed that Daoud had gone beyond the pale in denigrating the Spirit of Islam, which seems in itself a difficult thing to do. Somewhat encouragingly, this short article concludes with the “forces of reason” in the Oil Kingdom putting the “mad mullah” in his place and in turn making the land safe from the creeping “burkanization” of babies. It is said that even in a land of lunatics, a quality of prudence and civic decorum holds sway on occasion.

But lost in the final words of the article’s text is a most revealing observation. Somehow, the twisted and selective logic of Judge Sheik al-Jzlana leads him to the conclusion that what is an injustice to children is by the same token prudent and legal when applied to an adult female. If I understand the learned judge correctly, burkas and the veil are a prophylactic means to protect adult women from the predations and irresistible natures that burn within male and female and whose interactions must be monitored at all times through a series of legal strictures. However, if the veil for a child or baby adds derision to Islam, what are we to say about a religio-legal system whose venerated Founder saw fit to give his sanctified blessing for captive women to be held as sex slaves; and indeed, who thought it morally fitting to betroth the young child Aisha at the tender age of six? What semblance of propriety are we to make of a man whose advanced holiness allowed him to forego coitus until the young girl had reached the majority of nine years of age?

In light of all this, in the February 3, 2013 version of Examiner.com, we read of a Saudi Islamic cleric who admitted to raping, torturing, and murdering his five year old daughter under the aegis that she had not retained her virginity. Aside from the internal paradox of concepts here, how did the learned masters of Sharia law adjudicate this diabolical mayhem–more dispositive of a reptile than a hallowed religious devotee? Apparently, with the equivalent of $50,000 and no jail time. I quote the author Michael Stone:

Fayhan al-Ghamdi, the victim’s father and a popular Islamic preacher who has made numerous television appearances promoting Islam, confessed to the heinous crime. Ghamdi told Saudi officials he used cables and a cane on his five-year-old daughter, leaving her with multiple injuries, including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm, extensive bruising and burns. In addition, one of Lama’s fingernails had been torn off. Hospital staff reports the child’s rectum had been torn open and the abuser had attempted to burn it closed.

The article goes on to elucidate the fact that had our noble cleric committed the act upon a male, he would have drawn a doubled fine. Moreover, under Sharia law no father may be given the death penalty either for murdering wife or children. The theme of the article continues on with its illuminating the severe notion of Guardianship in this most fundamentalist of Islamic kingdoms, and it is this strict relationship between man and wife that condemns the female to the status of a minor and allows him to treat his daughter as chattel property to be auctioned off as he deems fit. Recently, a case in Saudi Arabia emerged where a fifteen year old girl was sold to a man of ninety for a handsome price and the young girl wisely locked herself away from him on her wedding night before finally fleeing. Alas, such anecdotal stories are legion in a culture where peace and non-compulsion are heralded as hallmarks of the moral imagination.

By now, the scrutinizing eye that has not drifted into Progressive somnamulance is well aware of the relationship between Islam and the rape of European women. Of these nations, Sweden has been encountering rapes at astronomical levels some twenty times greater than that of southern Europe. In addition, the incidents of child rape have skyrocketed and the lion’s share of these cases are attributed to Middle Eastern and North African immigrants. All throughout Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, and Britain, reports of violent teams of rapists have flooded the police docks; and in many cases, the politically correct authorities are complicit in the cover-up by identifying the culprits as indeterminately “Asian.”

Lest we be accused of slandering Islam in our investigation, it should be emphasized that the Koran and Hadiths give full sanction to the rape of infidel women for the pursuit of pleasure in foreign lands. In Sharia, the melding of sex and savage punishment as a consequential penalty for the non-believer finds legal sanction by Islamic jurists. Indeed, sex appears so persistent in the Islamic consciousness that it has been subject to a byzantine set of laws that seek to enflame rather than tame carnal lust.

In Shia Islam, a long standing institution known as M’uta serves as a clever means to bypass the stringent laws against Muslim fornication that can be dealt with severely. Under M’uta, a marriage contract can be entered into by both consenting parties for as little as an hour as a means of legitimizing coitus for an agreed upon cash transaction. While little more than prostitution, such a ruse operates out in the open and with the blessing of the Shia clerics. In fact, the Shia cleric of clerics, Ayatollah Khomeini, authored a book relating to human relations known as “The Green Book,” wherein he codified and legitimatized an entire panorama of human actions including bestiality. I quote one of his most shocking:

A Muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her”. (Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990).

And so we at last come full circle in our query. When a religio-politico doctrine has enshrined chattel slavery and the de facto ownership of human beings within its worldview, should we be astonished that it discounts rights, human autonomy and humane moral treatment in the bargain? Having locked the unescorted female away in the home, Islam is guilty of a sin more grievous than the comingling of genders. In denying women the freedom of showing their facial countenance–the foremost symbol of individuality and personality– does not fundamentalist Islam express an a priori aversion to free will and create a climate wherein women become the equivalent of birds and fish—to be enjoyed and savoured as mere instrumental goods?

If one can deny women’s fundamental humanity and equality under law, then surely culture will invariably move in lockstep in the procession of burkas to rapine. There is a fundamental evil occurring in men when they ignore the filth, immoderation and dearth of restraint that lies within, while reciprocally blaming the victim for the very primitive moral structures they have conspired to create. In psychologically projecting the myth that women are incapable of self-control, Fundamentalist male pride ignores the heaving beam wedged in their own eye while fixating on the mote that lies hidden behind that terrified opaque linen veil.
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (3508 views)

Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Of Burkas and Babes

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Barring a confession, conviction for a sexual crime (such as rape) under Sharia requires 4 male eyewitnesses to the deed (women, of course, only count for half as much as men). This is why it’s dangerous for a woman to accuse a man of rape: a conviction is virtually impossible, but her claim amounts to an admission of sex that can then lead to conviction and execution for fornication. Ayaan Hirsi Ali pointed out that much of Islamic culture is about controlling women — and those who prate of a Republican “war on women” are unconcerned.

    I recently read an article (from a link on HotAir) that discussed the problems Muslim women have keeping up with appropriate burka styles, and pointing out that western women face similar difficulties being stylish. The author neglected to mention that the Muslim women might be killed for not being suitably attired, whereas those troubled western women face no such danger for lack of style.

  2. charlotte says:

    Let them put burkas on babies. The incidence of cot deaths and smothering will rise exponentially. Female babies are only good for Mooslimes in as much as they are regarded as baby breeders. They have no status in Islam except for that. Sexual pleasure in Islam is gained from sex with young boys/men/goats/camels and rape of babies young girls/virgins who disobey the men in the clan.

  3. Powerful piece, Glenn. I find it amazing that Islamic males don’t seem to realize that by forcing their women to wear tents, ostensibly to keep the women from sexually running a-muck, that they have admitted to having no sexual restraint themselves. How are we to avoid the assumption that Muslim men are all, at heart, barely controlled rapists? That such evil passes for civil society in such a large part of the world is mind-boggling for those of us who grew up on Leave it to Beaver.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I believe Islamic doctrine is that ALL males are that way. No good Muslim would let such details as the absence of mass rapes in the West cause them to doubt that doctrine. After all, if Western men are so chaste, why would we need to make free contraception a basic right?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I think it might be worthwhile re-reading my earlier piece here: http://www.stubbornthings.org/quotations-for-the-koran/

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I find it amazing that Islamic males don’t seem to realize that by forcing their women to wear tents, ostensibly to keep the women from sexually running a-muck, that they have admitted to having no sexual restraint themselves.

      That’s very well said. One of the seven wonders of the world is the multiculturalist’s ability to see all cultures (particularly Islam) as equally valid….all while saying that Western Civilization (Christendom) is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and in need of destroying.

      Further, when in this age of identity politics wherein “identity” is stretched beyond all limits of importance, no words are heard from those “compassionate” people on the left about how the burqa is precisely about smothering the individual identity of the Muslim women.

      How do these “Progressive” fools look at themselves in the mirror? How much longer can they believe the nonsense skimmed from the news and Marxist college professors that passes for enlightened wisdom?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        To be precise, multiculturalists preach that all cultures are valid except their own. But, of course, when pressed they don’t support the misogyny (especially genital mutilation of various sorts) of Muslim cultures, or the anti-homosexual behavior of many cultures, etc. But that doesn’t matter as long as they can avoid talking about such unpleasant things.

  4. Glenn Fairman says:

    The Bukhari Hadith has Mohammad saying that he has seen hell and that it is populated mostly by women. However, we get a strong idea from the Sunnah that women are as birds and fish—not fully rational beings and more as appendages. It is implied that women cannot tame their carnal natures and it is because of this that they must be veiled and cloistered—-as big a psychological projection as the Nazi’s view of the Jew.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Speaking of the latter, Dr. Gilbert’s Nuremberg Diary has his interviews with the major war criminals, including Julius Streicher, and thus sheds light on the basis of his anti-Semitism. (It’s also where Hermann Goering explained the Fuehrerprinzip.)

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I can’t get to the book now, but I also recall that Dr. Gilbert made a very good case that Hitler had Parkinson disease and was likely suffering from methamphetamine toxicity from at least 1941.

        I had long thought that Hitler was probably clinically insane as of about 1941 so I found Gilbert’s information very interesting.

        There is another book by a physician of some sort with further information on the Nuremberg defendants. I will see if I can find it in my pile of books.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I think Dr. Morell played a major role in Hitler’s increasing derangement during the war. To start with, he had a touch of brilliance and actually paid some attention to his military advisors. As time passed, he became increasingly rigid and closed-minded (to the great benefit of his enemies).

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I am also convinced Morell was instrumental in Hitler’s derangement. The man kept Hitler going on a chemical concoction which was unbelievable. Amphetamines in the morning to get up, barbiturates at night to sleep.

            Some years ago I gave a talk to WWII members of the U.S. Eighth Airforce, the premise of which was that the Allies should be grateful that Hitler was in complete control after 1941. He did not listen to his military advisers and took the Reich down the road to complete defeat. Had the Wehrmacht’s high command been in charge, it is unlikely the war in the East would have gone as disastrously as it did. It is also questionable that the North African campaign would have ended with the loss of 230,000 soldiers surrendering in Tunis.

            More importantly, I doubt that a rational Hitler would have declared war on the U.S.A. after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I’ve read that one of the Allies thought there was an opportunity to kill Hitler later in the war — and decided it was best to leave him there. Of course, one should note that at least through the battle of Kursk, there were professionals even aside from Keitel and Jodl who supported each of his decisions. (Admiral Raeder wanted to go to war with the US over FDR’s unofficial entry in late 1941, but Hitler was still sensible enough not to until Japan attacked.)

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Von Manstein and especially Guderian, who was probably the best German general, had major disagreements with Hitler.

                Many years ago I knew someone who had served on the German general staff and who later served on the Russian front. He told me stories about both von Manstein and Guderian leaving meetings with Hitler and both being completely exhausted. Guderian would have knock down drag out fights with Hitler. Apparently, he was the only general who had the nerve to do this.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I found the books I mentioned to you regarding the Nuremberg prisoners and Hitler’s health issues.

            The first is “Hitler and the Nazi Leaders: A Unique Insight Into Evil”, by John K. Lattimer who was a physician at Nuremberg. This book published in 2001 in paperback, deals with the major Nazi criminals giving each a chapter. The chapter regarding Goering is particularly interesting. One observation which I will never forget is the description of Goering’s surrender and the huge amount of baggage he had with him. “One of his large handsome leather suitcases, embossed with his initials, contained what was probably the world’s entire supply of dihydrocodeine, since it was produced only in Germany.” Goering took 100 of these pills every day.

            Another book which dealt with Hitler’s health was “The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler” by Leonard and Renate Heston (M.D. and R.N.). It was this book published in 1979 with a forward by Albert Speer, that discusses Hitler’s likely Parkinson disease and the drugs which Morell gave him.

            Finally, “The Man Who Invented Hitler” by David Lewis who is a pychologist, deals with the months after Hitler was gased in WWI and how a relative nobody without any leadership qualities became the man who evolved into the Fuehrer. Published in 2003.

            A study of how Hitler, who had none of the usual prerequisites needed to rise to the top in German politics, would be of interest. The man had no education, was from a lower middle class family and wasn’t even a German when elected to the Chancelorship, yet he took over the country. Very strange.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Daniel Mitchell has an article today (“It’s Not Springtime for Hitler and Obamacare”, available on TownHall) that includes links to several short video parodies by a group that takes a TV or movie portrayal of Hitler’s rant after he learns that Felix Steiner hasn’t launched his offensive (I don’t know enough German to follow along, but I can recognize many of the names) and provides subtitles referring to some aspect of Obama policies.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    Responding to Kung Fu Zu on those who could argue with Hitler, I would agree that Guderian probably did so the most fiercely, far more so than von Manstein (aka von Lewinsky — or was it Lewitsky?). But there were a few others, such as Halder (until Hitler canned him) and Heinrici. Others such as Rommel and von Rundstedt did so at least occasionally. Even Jodl disagreed with him — once.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I agree about Halder. I think he protested more than any other officer except Guderian. Heinrici’s major protests came too late in the war to count for much.

      However, the fact that he refused to institute the scorched earth policy which Hitler and Goering demanded, casts a good light on him.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        This leads to another general worthy of mention: Johannes Blaskowitz, who got into trouble for complaining about the SS in Poland and the way they misbehaved (not realizing, of course, that this was proper behavior for the SS). He was never promoted and was often lost his positions, but the fact remains that he did stand up at least once against vicious war crimes, and also that he wasn’t punished for it (merely deprived of rewards). This was a lesson — obedience to civilized standards remained legal (except maybe in the final collapse).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I saw a documentary a long time ago that was something along the lines of “The 3 things Hitler did to lose the war.”

        I’m sure one was switching the Luftwaffe from the RAF bases (and support structures) to the overall bomber of London. That gave the RAF time to rebuild. Apparently they were on the verge of collapse when Hitler moved the concentration of the bombing to London.

        I think number 2 was the delay in starting the campaign against the Russians. And I don’t remember what number 3 was. It may have been persecuting the populations in the territories the Germans took from the Russians because those populations had absolutely no love for Stalin and the Communists.

        Oh, and another was surely having no long-range bombers that could reach beyond the Urals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *