In my last post, I pointed out Bassam’s frightening comment that governments are luring men to rape women by not implementing stricter clothing laws. Bassam’s claim is quite consistent with Muslim views. The problem, of course, is that because of this twisted view of women, many Muslims around the world see a woman’s dress as an invitation to rape. Moreover, Muslim authorities in many countries simply will not punish rapists. Bassam replied to my post, and I will address his comments.
Bassam said: “Did I say that if women who dress shamelessly lure men to rape them and are responsible? Yes they are partly responsible for if they didn't dress shamelessly then they wouldn't have enticed the rapist to attack them. This is basic logic that no one can argue with.”
So Bassam admits that he is claiming that a woman is “partly responsible” if she is raped, provided she was dressed immodestly, since the rape may not have occurred had she been dressed in Muslim garb. Now compare Bassam’s view to the following claims:
“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”
“If you’re black, and you go to a neighborhood full of white supremacists, and they kill you, it’s partly your fault, since you wouldn’t have been killed if you hadn’t gone to their neighborhood.”
If Bassam really believes what he says about women (and I know he does), then he should agree with these other claims.
Bassam said: “Did I say that THE RAPIST IS NOT TO BLAME? This is absurd. The Prophet punished the rapist with death. It is the rapist's fault for not lowering his gaze as commanded by God in Surah 24 and he has no authority to 'punish' a woman for dressing immodestly for this is vigilantism. It is the government's duty to ensure that women dress appropriately in the society and they definately don't take measures such as rape in order to do that.”
(1) “Did I say that the rapist is not to blame?” I never said that you claimed this. My point is that this is what happens in the Muslim world. Muslim men see a woman who isn’t dressed according to Muslim standards, and they gang-rape her. The woman complains to the police. The police talk to the men, who say, “We thought the woman was a prostitute, because of the way she was dressed.” Since the testimony of women isn’t equal to that of a man in Islam, the police must side with the rapists. Best case scenario, the men will be charged with fornication. But they won’t be charged with rape. Most likely, they won’t be charged with anything. The woman, if she is in the right Muslim country, may even go to jail. Like it or not, Bassam, this is what happens over, and over, and over in the Muslim world (thanks to Muhammad).
(2) “The Prophet punished the rapist with death.” Bassam, please give readers the details and sources regarding Muhammad’s command that rapists be killed. Of course, you have to admit that it was perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rape their female captives (since Muhammad himself allowed this). And that’s the problem. Muhammad definitely allowed rape in certain situations. Why not rape a woman who needs to be taught a lesson?
(3) You claimed that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce clothing restrictions. But your government does enforce clothing restrictions—by allowing men to rape women who don’t follow the rules. You can’t deny this, Bassam. You know that’s what happens in your country. If a woman is dressed immodestly, and she is raped, the government will ignore her cries for justice, just as it will ignore the pleas of a woman who is constantly assaulted by her husband (thanks to Muhammad).
Bassam said: “What I find most interesting is that the very thing that David is repulsed by in his article is found in his Bible. For the God of the Bible allegedly commanded women to be raped because they were haughty!!! They used to be proud of their adornments and therefore God said that they asked for it!!!”
Bassam gave a link to this article, which argues that in Isaiah 3:17 God punishes haughty women with rape. According to the translation in the article, Isaiah 3:17 says: "Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts." The article goes on to argue that “discover their secret parts” means that the women will be raped.
The problem here is that this argument is (perhaps deliberately) based on an outdated and flawed translation of Isaiah. Consider two modern translations, the first being the most popular English translation, the second being the most literal English translation:
New International Version: "Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald."
New American Standard Bible: "Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs, And the LORD will make their foreheads bare."
Is there anything about rape here? Not at all! And this makes it all the more shocking when Bassam triumphantly comments: "I PROVED IT FROM YOUR BIBLE THAT WOMEN WERE RAPED FOR BEING HAUGHTY. SHOW ME THIS SAME DISPICABLE THING IN ISLAM."
Show him the same thing in Islam? Just watch the news, Bassam. It happens all the time (thanks to Muhammad).