Response to Shazia and A.B. on the topics of Context and Rape

Submitted by Reuben Horne (Australia), Sep 22, 2005 at 18:42

Dr Pipes,
I would like to think that when Shazia repeatedly makes the argument that actions in the Quran are to be read "in context" that he means the historical context. Medievilism in the West is a term associated with barbaric violence, serfdom, religious persecution, racism, sexism, supersticion and numerous other regressive phenomena. In this sense "context" might mean these were simply violent times - in Spain similar arguments have been used to justify the actions of Tomas De Torquemada and his Holy Inquisition (who is evidently still a hero in some circles over there). It seems however to be a common tennet of the Islamic faith that their religion (and by logical extension its true practitioners) are complete and perfect and suitable for application through all human history. This unfortunately would push me in the direction of believing that by "context" he means something else.

What is this this context that he refers to? Well it appears from a reading of the Koran that occasionally Mohammed was squaring off grudges with people he had been wronged by in the past (albeit with a disproportionate application of violence, murder, rape and slavery). Often enough however the context of his actions can be seen simply as the fact that he was /stronger/ and in a better strategic position to the people in question and so in the grand tradition of banditry he grabbed what he could get ahold of property and slave wise and grew all the stronger for it.

Such actions are common in the Old testament albeit without the graphic testimony of the subjugation and rape of women (which can by the above logic be seen as right of conquering muslim males to be enshrined for all time). However in interpreting them the Christian faith has often had reference to the divine authority of the prophet directing the violence in question. Since of course there are no prophets (or at least no acknowledged ones) bounding about issuing religious decrees for Christians and Jews to run around butchering and burning cities on the odd occasion that these things have occurred it has been secular rather than religious motives driving them. It is true that an over extension of the above doctrine enabled Popes of the past to invoke their divine authority to launch crusades (the justifiability of which are at least being debated in this forum rather than unilaterally condemned). More recently however religion has become a benign force in the Judeo-Christian world - the most hostile action by a Christian leader being Pope Benedict's reticence to shower the Islamic faith with praise as did his naive predecessor.

Arguments involving "context" are the most common apologetics delivered by muslims and muslim leaders. One such argument was made after an embarrassing 60 Minutes expose on an evangelical African American style sheik (fashioning himself after Malcom X) who came to Australia and said unambiguously: "Non Muslims cannot be the friends of muslims only associates because they cannot understand your beliefs." "Don't go to university as this will pollute your faith with some form of intellectuality." "It is your sacred duty to hold yourself apart and above the Infidels." "Islam has only one penalty for homosexuality and that is death." "Don't wear western clothing as this has logos on it which are the names of fags and queers." And so on and so forth ad infinitum - later he was heard to say: "I was quoted out of context."

Two observations: (1) Just how does Shazia think we are falling back on this context/contextual argument yet again. Okay we are pretty stupid - that's why there are 400,000 muslims in Australia, 1.6 million in England, 6 million in America, a staggering 40million in Europe and it is through immigration alone the fastest growing faith in the western world. But a partial quote from Abraham Lincoln reveals that "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" and this forum is filled with people that have not been fooled. Expect our numbers to grow. Islamic deception isn't that sophisticated even with the media as their willing puppet.
(2) I wonder if when the "context" of Islamic dominance emerges in a former western nation like the Netherlands (which will have a majority muslim population by 2040) whether we will see similar behaviour to Mohammed's in the Holy Quran towards the Dutch who have through the self negating doctrine of the left wing multi kulti turned themselves into tennants on their own land. Certainly in the small enclaves of total control that Islamic /thus far/ minorities in western countries (whilst Muslims have not yet shown pretensions of reviving slavery as they have in Sudan) kidnap and rape of western women is not an uncommon occurrence. We had a small taste of this in Sydney from the Lebanese Muslim community and apparently such things are commonplace in the five million strong Muslim community in France. I wonder if under a majority muslim community the Dutch police (assuming they too would be comprised of mostly muslims) would take complaints of sexual assault seriously? Just like A.B. I would tend to doubt it.

Cheers,
Reuben Horne.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".