Rapist praised for converting to Islam, because he’ll now respect women

There is no bliss inherent in the ignorance displayed by one judge in England:

A judge lambasted a rapist for claiming his victim was a liar – then commended him for becoming a muslim.

Judge Anthony Goldstaub QC sentenced Stuart Wood for seven years for the attack, then told him: ‘You have turned to Islam and this promises well for your future, particularly as you are now an adherent of a religion which respects women and self-discipline.’

Apparently Goldstaub has never heard of honor killings, burkhas, systematic rapes of non-Muslim women, the whole Saudi/Taliban package (unveiled girls being forced to die in burning buildings, chronic house arrest, being beaten on the street for showing any flesh), etc.  To characterize Islam as a religion that respects women, when 90% of Islam’s energy is directed to the subjugation of women is such a travesty that it defies words.  It’s impossible to tell if the judge was motivated by ignorance or malice in making that kind of statement.

I’ll close this short post with a quote from my cousin, the prison chaplain, with his take on prison conversions to Islam:

It is not a contradiction to be a Muslim and a murderer, even a mass murderer. That is one reason why criminals “convert” to Islam in prison. They don’t convert at all; they similarly remain the angry judgmental vicious beings they always have been. They simply add “religious” diatribes to their personal invective. Islam does not inspire a crisis of conscience, just inspirations to outrage.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    I’d like to add one more to your list, Book, marrying off your daughter at 11.

    San’a – A 12-year-old Yemeni child-bride died after struggling for three days in labour to give birth, a local human rights organisation said.

    Fawziya Abdullah Youssef died of severe bleeding on Friday while giving birth to a stillborn in the al-Zahra district hospital of Hodeida province, 223km west of the capital San’a.

    Child marriages are widespread in Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country, where tribal customs dominate society. More than a quarter of the country’s females marry before age 15, according to a recent report by the Social Affairs Ministry.

    Youssef was only 11 when her father married her to a 24-year-old man who works as a farmer in Saudi Arabia, Ahmed al-Quraishi, chairperson of Siyaj human rights organisation, said on Saturday.

    Girls forced into marriage

    Al-Quraishi, whose group promotes child rights in Yemen, said that he stumbled upon Youssef in the hospital while investigating cases of children who had fled from the fighting in the north.

    “This is one of many cases that exist in Yemen,” said al-Quraishi. “The reason behind it is the lack of education and awareness, forcing many girls into marriage in this very early age.”

    Impoverished parents in Yemen sometimes give away their young daughters in return for hefty dowries. There is also a long-standing tribal custom in which infant daughters and sons are promised to cousins in hopes it will protect them from illicit relationships, he said.

    I would add a rant here, but the ludicrous and dismal explanation from al-Quraishi says enough.

  2. Charles Martel says

    Mohammed was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he had first intercourse with her when she was nine. A subsequent revelation from Allah allowed him more than four wives, as well as the licit access that all Mohammedan men have to slave women and concubines.

    Whooeee! If the world’s most perfect man can make moofkie poofkie with as many females as he wants as young as he wants, who is any Allah-fearing Yemeni or Michiganer dimwit to refuse to do the same?

  3. SADIE says

    moofkie poofkie ?

    Sounds like a Moroccan dessert.

    Dimwits don’t deserve diddly squat, unless it is being served as a dessert.

    What really ticked me off, was the blame was tossed in every direction except at its roots. Denial = death for a 12 year old girl.

  4. says

    The reason behind it is the lack of education and awareness

    That’s not the reason. The real reason is that there ain’t a warlord there to enforce the common decency through mass executions and painful punishment.

    Human society is centered around the hierarchy. You have the boss and then you have people who follow the boss. The problem there isn’t education, they are well educated on Islam and their cultural heritage. It’s power. The people that are abused, don’t have it, and the people doing the abuse, never has to give it up.

    The solution to this is not talk. It’s to change the power structure. Put our guy into the chair and have him kill anyone that disagrees. If he doesn’t, if people try to talk, it’ll end up like Iraq 2004. The people doing the killing will be doing most of the effective communication. Whle the people that tried to set up lanes of communication, like Crocker and the UN representative Crocker was working would, gets sidelined until a military figure, Petraeus, comes on the scene and offers real power and intimidation value.

    If you want people to do things differently, then you have to make it happen. Not through reason. Tribal societies don’t use reason. They respect strength and values such as honor. If you don’t present such values, they will pay no attention to you. And the only way to demonstrate such values is to show that you can kill them and they can’t get rid of you by killing you or yours.

    The tribes understand a simple language. They raid and kill 10 of ours, and we can kill 10 or 20 of theirs. They know that they have their girl-wives to produce more, over a longer period of time than ours. So when you wipe their entire family unit out, down to the last man and woman, while kidnapping the children and adopting them as our own or slaughtering them as the Mongols would do, the tribes UNDERSTAND you for probably the first time around. They understand what you are communicating.

    Try to ‘educate’ them on why they shouldn’t have a bigger tribe by putting their children to work, gets nowhere. They don’t respect your knowledge, cause you have no power over them. You demonstrate no discipline, no ruthlessness, no ability to kill. Thus they have no reason to listen to you or to make deals with you. The family is everything to the tribe. Demonstrate that they can be easily exterminated and they will adapt. They have no ideological reasons to be against working for anyone. Not the Soviets, not the Chinese, not the Brits, and not the Americans.

    There are ways to extend this out, of course. But it requires that you be willing to lose so many of your own, that that amount of blood itself convinces the tribes of your national and personal valor. So instead of killing off the entire tribe down to its roots, you replace half of the tribe’s dead with your own. In the end, about the same number of people die, add on the collateral damage, of course.

  5. Mike Devx says

    It is not a contradiction to be a Muslim and a murderer, even a mass murderer. That is one reason why criminals “convert” to Islam in prison. They don’t convert at all; they similarly remain the angry judgmental vicious beings they always have been. They simply add “religious” diatribes to their personal invective. Islam does not inspire a crisis of conscience, just inspirations to outrage.

    I’d like to see the recidivism rates for those who convert to Islam compared to those who convert to Christianity. In particular, I’d be interested in statistics on those who embrace Wahhabi Islam or other forms that promote violent jihad against the unbeliever. Similarly, statistics on those who actually say they have taken Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be interesting as well.

    You can’t discern very much from single anecdotes. But I would think you can rely on the chaplain, who has seen angry, vicious young men convert to Islam… only to remain angry, vicious young men.

  6. says

    He was jailed for seven years for rape, nine months for ABH and three months for common assault, making a total of eight years. He will be on the sex offenders’ register indefinitely.

    He’ll be out in 5.

    See, the problem with putting the bottom 25% of the human species into positions of power is that you get stuff like this.

    Instead of personally taking care of such matters, they just punt it into the future so that some poor man or woman has to deal with the ramifications. The prisoner is not executed, and so society is not safe. But the judges don’t care, because they’re not hired to protect society. They’re hired to ensure that prisons protect the prisoners inside. But that’s not what is going on in Britain. The prisons now exist to protect the public from the prisoners.

    When you have such a turn around in power levels, you know that society has become corrupted.

    Jail is to protect defendants and the convicted alike from us. Not the other way around. If you try to make it the other way around, it will fail. And that failure will require even more ruthless punishments, and even more permanent ones. Not like the semi-permanent ‘life imprisonment’ which really isn’t life and really isn’t imprisonment, either.

  7. says

    I think one of the greatest crimes against AMericans has been the idea drilled into our heads that prisons exist to protect the public from the convicts. Why does the public need such protection? We numerous and so well armed that we could form a posse and go in and execute, by hanging, the lot of them.

    The law exists to protect criminals and those accused of crimes and their rights. THEIR RIGHTS, do you understand that? If you did use the law to protect the rights of prisoners, then you can’t protect the public from them. How can you do so? You would violate THEIR RIGHTS. So no, the laws don’t exist to protect us from them, it is to protect them from us.

    This creates an entitlement in the mind of those convicted. They believe they are powerful and feared, that the system can’t deal with them, nor can the police, nor can the public. The system is designed to protect them. The system can’t protect the public against the same kinds of people that is also being protected. Something has to give, and usually it is the victim of crime that folds.

    Prisoners would behave far better if they realized that their guards are their ultimate benefactors. That should they be released into the population, the population would tear them apart. but they don’t realize that. They don’t expect ordinary people to be able to use violence. They expect most of us to be sheep, because that’s how most of the people they know in life actually are: sheep. They follow orders, they travel in groups, and they run the F away from danger.

    So a criminal is protected from lynching, from assassination, and from vigilantism by the law, but the law also, as a requirement, protects the people, right? Wrong. The law can’t prevent crime without violating our rights to legal searches. How are the police supposed to know who is or is not a criminal? They have to respect certain boundaries and limitations, which means that they cannot prevent crime from occurring with a few exceptions such as raids or enticement.

    No, you’re left alone to protect yourself. The police are just there to clean up the bodies afterwards. Whether those bodies will be yours and your family, or your attacker’s, remains up to you to decide.

    The police can protect us from fraud and various violations of the law by certain others, through enforcing punishment and standards. But they can’t stop the asocial criminals that will pay any price to do what they want to do. There’s no punishment great enough to stop them, except death.

    As seen with the SEC and Madoff, the ‘govmint’ will arrive there mostly after the bodies have been laid out and rotting.

  8. says

    I am both for DP and against DP.

    I believe that it is the right and duty of every citizen to execute all kinds of public enemies. I do not believe it should be in the hands of the state to decide who lives and who dies, even if you include due process.

    I am for DP because I know the people against DP will NEVER EVER allow the execution of those criminals by anyone. Instead, they will reserve their executions for the young, the defenseless, the powerless, and the abused.

    You know all those rationalists and Libertarians that are against the Death Penalty? Have you ever heard from them that instead of the state killing folks, that they should be the ones that decide when death is justified?

    *snorts*

  9. Mike Devx says

    Jail is to protect defendants and the convicted alike from us. Not the other way around. If you try to make it the other way around, it will fail. And that failure will require even more ruthless punishments, and even more permanent ones. Not like the semi-permanent ‘life imprisonment’ which really isn’t life and really isn’t imprisonment, either.

    I like this point by Ymar. And I relate it to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in that we capture jihadists and imprison them, only to set them free a short time later. Surely this counts as “soft punishment”. As Ymar said, “that failure will require even more ruthless punishments.”

    Things are getting to the point that I’d like to advise our great people in the military to take the route of “more ruthless punishments”, because it’s becoming more and more necessary. If the jihadists are fighting you, make sure they *can’t* become prisoners by putting the bullet right between their eyes. Don’t wound – kill.

    It reminds me of the bitter joke prompted by the state of our legal system:

    Q: What is the best action to take if you are driving down the road and you accidentally hit someone?

    A. Immediately pull over. Render first aid. Then call 9-11.
    B. Immediately pull over. Call 9-11. Then render first aid.
    C. Back up and run them over again, to finish the job. Then split.

    It’s a bitter joke because the claim is that “C” tends to result in your best outcome, statistically. I don’t know that that statistical claim is true, but that’s the joke and the story that percolates out there.

  10. says

    Most people don’t make decisions based upon statistics or rationality, but upon emotion and gut instinct. What they have been taught from childhood, not what they have intellectualized in the few scant years that they have been thinking.

  11. Quisp says

    Kay Hymowitz has a wonderful article in City Journal called Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam. It’s a long article and well worth the read, but I’ll quote a tiny taste:

    To understand the current sisterly silence about the sort of tyranny that the women’s movement came into existence to attack, it is helpful to think of feminisms plural rather than singular. Though not entirely discrete philosophies, each of three different feminisms has its own distinct reasons for causing activists to “lose their voice” in the face of women’s oppression.

    The first variety—radical feminism (or gender feminism, in Christina Hoff Sommers’s term)—starts with the insight that men are, not to put too fine a point upon it, brutes. Radical feminists do not simply subscribe to the reasonable-enough notion that men are naturally more prone to aggression than women. They believe that maleness is a kind of original sin. Masculinity explains child abuse, marital strife, high defense spending, every war from Troy to Afghanistan, as well as Hitler, Franco, and Pinochet. As Gloria Steinem informed the audience at a Florida fundraiser last March: “The cult of masculinity is the basis for every violent, fascist regime.”

    The second variety of feminism, seemingly more sophisticated and especially prevalent on college campuses, is multiculturalism and its twin, postcolonialism. The postcolonial feminist has even more reason to shy away from the predicament of women under radical Islam than her maternally thinking sister. She believes that the Western world is so sullied by its legacy of imperialism that no Westerner, man or woman, can utter a word of judgment against former colonial peoples. Worse, she is not so sure that radical Islam isn’t an authentic, indigenous—and therefore appropriate—expression of Arab and Middle Eastern identity.

    The final category in the feminist taxonomy, which might be called the world-government utopian strain, is in many respects closest to classical liberal feminism. Dedicated to full female dignity and equality, it generally eschews both the biological determinism of the gender feminist and the cultural relativism of the multiculti postcolonialist…Confusing “women’s participation” with self-determination, and numerical equivalence with equality, CEDAW utopians try to orchestrate their perfect society through quotas and affirmative-action plans

Leave a Reply