Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Part Four

BASSAM SAID: “David, I rephrased what you said and stated that the woman is compared to the person who CONTINOUSLY IGNORES THE LAW about securing your property and thus gets affected.”

There’s quite a difference here, Bassam, enough to qualify your response as a “strained analogy.” A person who leaves his belongings unguarded in an area where the government enforces a law that people must guard their belongings is hardly comparable to a woman who dresses in a skirt in a country where this is entirely acceptable. You say that she has violated the law of God. Well, if we were to assume that Islam is true (circular reasoning, Bassam), you might be able to make that claim. But since the woman in the skirt has no reason to accept Islam, she can hardly be faulted for not obeying Muslim clothing restrictions.

BASSAM SAID: “Similarly, I am saying that the woman’s immodest dress could let the situation occur. She is partly responsible for what occurred; however that does not mean that she is to be punished.”

Let’s review what you said, Bassam. You originally said that an immodestly dressed woman is partly responsible if she is raped. I compared this to the claim that a man who leaves his car in his driveway without covering it is partly responsible if his car is stolen. You then said that this wasn’t enough—the woman had done far more than this. You then compared the woman’s action to a man who leaves his car unlocked, with expensive belongings ripe for the taking. So (and this is a fact, Bassam) when you see a woman who is not dressed according to Muslim clothing restrictions, in your mind she is like a person who leaves his possessions out in the open so that people can take them. Like it or not, this is disturbing.

Yet you say that the woman isn’t to be punished. Here’s a question, Bassam. When the French woman came to your country and was gang-raped, and the government charged her with a crime, but didn’t charge the men, did you protest? Or did you just accept the ruling like everyone else? Even worse, did you say, “Well, it was her own fault, since she got into the car with the men”?

BASSAM SAID: “I don’t see how there is anything repulsive in what I am saying.”

That’s part of the problem.

BASSAM SAID: “Sorry to say David, but you have not logically defeated my argument.”

I haven’t been trying to logically defeat your beliefs about women. All I’ve been trying to do here is to get people to see what you’re saying, and that your views are a result of Islam. It’s impossible to logically refute a person’s view that rape victims are responsible when they are raped (since this is a moral viewpoint). However, I do think it’s important for people to recognize that many Muslims see things this way. And you’ve done an excellent job helping me prove my point, Bassam. Thank you.

BASSAM SAID: “David said… ‘This would sound frightening to any woman.’ Then follow the Islamic dress code and have no fear.”

Again, you never cease to amaze me, Bassam. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, EVERYONE!!! You compared a woman in a miniskirt to a man who leaves his possessions unattended and unguarded, ripe for the taking. I said (following Um Yaquub) that this view is frightening to women. And your ominous reply was: “Then follow the Islamic dress code and have no fear.” Let me get this straight. Non-Muslim women should follow the Islamic dress code so that they won’t be raped by Muslim men? This is shocking. I suppose you would say that the entire world should convert to Islam so that we won’t be killed by Muslim terrorists.

BASSAM SAID: “Plus, why would you be frightened by me?”

What is frightening is that you are a moderate Muslim, from a moderate Muslim country, who is telling women that they should wear Muslim clothing to avoid being raped. You think like this, and so do millions of other Muslim men. Muslim men are raping women around the world, and it’s the result of a sick view among Muslims. The fact that it doesn’t bother you (or any other Muslims reading this blog) is just plain scary.

BASSAM SAID: “People need to overcome temptation rather they like it or not. But what I am telling you is that Islam makes this easier by offering practical solutions.”

Practical solutions such as forcing women to cover themselves completely, or be raped? Practical solutions such as cutting off people’s hands, or stoning them, or giving them hundreds of lashes? Practical solutions such as killing people for criticizing Muhammad? True, these tactics sometimes work, but at what cost? (Please read Infidel, and you can see the cost. Of course, you’ll have to wait until you come to America to read it, Bassam, since your country won’t allow such books. Censorship of criticism against Islam—another “practical solution.”)

BASSAM SAID: “Yes, we must overcome temptation. However, if there is something that we can do to ease the situation then why not opt for it?”

You “ease the situation” by controlling women in practically every way. It’s as if you’re saying, “Yes, we have to control women and make them miserable. But if it makes men’s lives a little easier, it’s all worth it.”

BASSAM SAID: “That doesn’t mean we go out looking for it and then try overcoming it. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are getting this faulty reasoning from the story of Jesus overcoming the temptation of the devil at the mountain.”

No, I’m not getting this from Jesus’ experience on the mountain. It’s just simple observation, Bassam. Americans don’t go into a rape-frenzy when they see a woman dressed in a miniskirt. But many Muslims do. What, then, is the difference between these two groups? Americans have seen women in miniskirts before. Muslims don’t see this much in their own countries. Hence, Americans have no problem when they see a woman in a miniskirt, while Muslims go berserk. You’re saying that the latter situation is better. I’m saying you’re wrong. Unfortunately, gang-rapes are taking place around the world right now because of the Muslim position.

BASSAM SAID: “First of all, Islam only says that it is permissible for one to have sex with his slave girl, NOT RAPE THEM.”

Have you read these accounts, Bassam? Let’s review. The families of these women had just been slaughtered, and the women were about to be sold into slavery. It’s obvious that they didn’t want to have sex with the Muslims. And yet Muhammad allowed it. If you don’t see that this is rape, the situation is even scarier than I thought.

BASSAM SAID: “You don’t take into account Islamic teachings that severely rebuke those who abuse those under their authority (slave girls included).”

Again, Muslims viewed sex with their slave-girls as a right (whether the girls approved or not), so these “rebukes” don’t apply to the rape of female captives.

BASSAM SAID: “I have emailed the author of the article and he said he will refute your weak response in an upcoming article. Once it is finished, I will send it to you.”

I checked out the response, and I have two pieces of advice. First, as for you, be careful who you listen to. And as for your friend, he should be careful when he assumes that his readers have absolutely no access to Hebrew resources. (I can’t come up with any other explanation for his inaccuracies, except that he assumes ignorance on the part of his readers.) But I think his errors require a full response, so I’ll post one in the next day or two.

BASSAM SAID: “As for the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations, I wish besides blabbing nonsense you could actually prove it.”

Well, I can show historically that Muhammad allowed his followers to rape their female captives. Of course, you simply reinterpret everything you don’t like, so no amount of evidence will convince you. But the ahadith speak for themselves, and any non-Muslim who reads them will be shocked by the treatment of women.


Ree said...

Have you seen this? It's hilarious!

Sunil said...

>> All I’ve been trying to do here is to get people to see what you’re saying, and that your views are a result of Islam.
>> But the ahadith speak for themselves, and any non-Muslim who reads them will be shocked by the treatment of women

I think it is important that we look at Muhammad’s actions/teachings/prescriptions (and their continued enforcement in Islamic nations today) and see how they fare on the basis of basic common sense; moral/philosophical conscience/reason; findings of independent objective research (in different fields like history, science, medicine, human development, human rights, social scientists, sociologists, legal experts, statisticians etc.) and how the actions/teachings/prescriptions fare when seen in the light of life/teachings/message of Christ/NT (which is according to Christian worldview is the highest order of God's revelation related to morality, and profoundest/advanced understanding of God).

Talking specifically about issues related to women, it ought to be the unanimous verdict that things like wife-beating, polygamy, oppressive restrictions on women, menstruation as sign to begin sexuality, child marriage, Muhammad’s own favoritism in dealing with wives, value as witness, mode of trial in rape cases, dealing with slaves/women captives, religious persecution etc fall short of ideal. However, in order to defend these things (on behalf of Muhammad), a debating trick used by some Muslims is to reject/disregard the use of common sense and moral/philosophical conscience/reason on the pretext that it is merely subjective and of no value. And then reject the independent objective research and scholarly conclusions (by experts cutting across cultures/traditions/nationalities) on these matters as 'merely human'. And of course reject the authority of Jesus/NT (which indicts the actions/teachings/prescriptions of Muhammad).

I think this debating trick will not last long and people will sooner or later see through the trick. People like Bassam say (or like us to believe) that these are "useless" topics. Bassam is of course free to have his subjective perception on the usefulness of discussing the actions/teachings/prescriptions of Muhammad which demonstrably fall short of ideal given to us. However, there is nothing wrong in an assumption that a majority of people exercise their right to use their common sense and moral/philosophical conscience/reason (inner voice of God that tells us what is God's ideal given to us and what is not); And consider/evaluate seriously, the independent objective input of experts based on meticulous research in various fields of pursuit and knowledge; And open to honestly consider the evidences/reasons for authority of Jesus/NT.

Um Yaquub said...

.An imam in Australia (sorry, don't remember his name) compared the assault of a scantily-dressed woman on a beach by a group of Muslim men to leaving a piece of meet out on the street where dogs can get at it.

Now--leaving aside the insult to women--what about the insult to men? Do you believe men have no control over their own bodies or actions--ever? Or should they?

How do you look at men? A dog can be trained not to devour anything not given by its owner. Are you saying that men--humans!--are less capable?

This too worries me.

Um Yaquub said...

Furthermore, do you guys ever discuss anything but sex?

akhter said...

Sunil before you compare others do
have a look at yourself first!!