Norwegian Women "Embrace(d) (by) Diversity"

[Play The Man]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145161

According to an amazing police report released there this month, every single solved case of assault-rape in the country in 2010 was carried out by a Muslim immigrant.

Defenders of Islam call it a "religion of peace" but many Norwegian women are learning that Islam is the religion of rape. According to an amazing police report released there this month, every single solved case of assault-rape in the country in 2010 was carried out by a Muslim immigrant.

The report was cited by an official Norwegian television station, which interviewed a victim who said that her rapist explained to her that his religion permits him to rape her.

According to the police report there was a total of 186 of known rape cases in 2010. These fall into various categories, the largest one of which is assault-rape, carried out by sheer physical force, of which there were 86 cases. In 83 of these cases the perpetrator could be identified by the victim. In all 83, the attacker was described as having "non-western appearance," a laundered euphemism for Muslim immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, or Asia.

In other categories of rape there were Norwegian attackers as well, but they were still in the minority (Note: the translation of the Norwegian TV report embedded here does not make a distiction between "assault rape" and other forms of rape, and appears to confuse the statistics for 2010 with those for 2006-2010).

A female police officer who commented on the report explained that “Many of the perpetrators who commit these rapes are on the edge of society often unemployed, arriving from traumatized countries. In the past five years it has often been asylum seekers.”

The problem is not new. A report in Aftenposten in 2001 said: “While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases.”

“In 2005, the blogger Fjordman reported on a similar rape wave in Sweden. A crime prevention study that year reported that Algerians, Libyans, Moroccans, and Tunisians ‘dominate the group of rape suspects,’ he reported. The same year, the newspaper Aftonbladet reported that nearly half of all rapists were immigrants.”

The way Muslims treat Women is plumb evil! In some cases its like a slave with no value!

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE

The way Muslims treat Women is plumb evil! In some cases its like a slave with no value!

Funny that you should use that wording. I was just on Victor Davis Hanson's website and he linked to the following FrontPageMagazine.com article by Raymond Ibrahim:

Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that "When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."

This week's depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman — Salwa al-Mutairi, a political activist and former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait's government, no less: She, too, seeks to "revive the institution of sex-slavery."

A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):

Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

The Arabic news website, Al Arabiya, has the sordid details, including a video of Mutairi addressing this topic. I summarize and translate various excerpts below (note: I am not making any of this up):

The Kuwaiti female activist begins by insisting that "it's of course true" that "the prophet of Islam legitimized sex-slavery." She recounts how when she was in Mecca, Islam's holiest city, she asked various sheikhs and muftis (learned, authoritative Muslims) about the legality of sex-slavery according to Sharia: they all confirmed it to be perfectly legal; Kuwaiti ulema further pointed out that extra "virile" men — Western synonyms include "sex-crazed," "lecherous," "perverted" — would do well to purchase sex-slaves to sate their appetites without sinning.

Here's a particularly interesting excerpt from her taped speech on the rules governing sex-slaves:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state — sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state — and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex-slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter's body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up — she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave — he just buys her and that's that.

She went on to offer concrete suggestions: "For example, in the Chechnyan war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don't see any problem in this, no problem at all."

Mutairi suggests the enslaved girls be at least 15 years old.

She further justified the institution of sex-slavery by evoking 8th-century caliph, Harun Rashid — a name some may recall from Arabian Nights bedtime stories; a name some may be surprised to discover politically active Muslims modeling their lives after: "And the greatest example we have is Harun al-Rashid: when he died, he had 2,000 sex slaves — so it's okay, nothing wrong with it."

Mutairi's rationale is ultimately guided by a sense of efficiency, a desire for the good of society: legalizing sex-slaves helps prevent Muslim men from transgressing Allah's laws (as we have seen, extramarital relations with fellow Muslim women is strictly forbidden, but not with infidel sex-slaves, since they are scarcely considered human). Thus, the institution of sex-slavery provides a convenient, Sharia-compliant way of satiating the libidinous urges of Muslim men.

The Kuwaiti activist's blunt approach actually has universal parallels. For example, in the West, some seek to legalize marijuana, arguing that, since people use it anyway, let it be made compliant with the law. In the Muslim world, we have those who seek to legalize sex-slavery, arguing that, since Muslim men will use women anyway, let it be made compliant with Sharia law.

Such are the inevitable differences between the Western mindset (based on reason and universal rights) and the Sharia mindset (based on the life of a 7th-century Arabian caravan-raider and slave-trader).

Mutairi concluded by piously supplicating Allah: "Oh I truly wish this for Kuwait, Allah willing — Oh Lord, Lord, you are bountiful…"

While she waits, Mutairi can take solace in the fact that, if sex-slavery is not institutionalized in Kuwait, it thrives underground throughout the Muslim world, where non-Muslim girls — mostly Christians — are routinely abducted, enslaved, and forced into lives of unspeakable degradation.

After all, just because a practice is not formally institutionalized does not mean that those who deem it their divine right are not practicing it.

[flo]

And these are the people we kow-tow to. Words fail me.

To many cousins marrying each other ain't helping them none!

Isn't every case of rape "assault rape?"

I'd love to see how many rapes were committed by christian people during the last 5 years or so, but that would be christian bashing according to people on here. Anyone have those numbers handy?

Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE

The way Muslims treat Women is plumb evil! In some cases its like a slave with no value!

Read Judges 21: 10- 24. If I recall and understood it correctly, it was ok for men to kidnap women and girls and (take as wives) rape them. I'm sure I'll be told that that's not what it means and that because it was in the OT it doesn't apply.

If I am truly wrong in my interpretations, I'll gladly listen to your corrections.

Read Numbers 31: 7-18

Numbers 31: 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

EDIT: There are other verses that suggest the same though atm I'm too lazy to look them up.

Aren't women supposed to submit to the dominance of man according to the bible? Seems they are treated like crap there too.

Now to be fair and balanced like Fox News. Teeheehee. I couldn't keep a straight face after saying that.

The quran and the muslim religion has some crappy disgusting stuff in there too but I can't quote it because I don't own a copy and can't verify if what I read on the net is actually in it or not at this time. I own several bibles so I can go to them for review.

If this were a muslim site and the people were only picking on the christian religion, you'd see me saying the same about their religion as I do about christianity, still finding both to be full of hate (maybe too harsh of a word) for anyone who doesn't follow x's brand of religion.

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Isn't every case of rape "assault rape?"

I'd love to see how many rapes were committed by christian people during the last 5 years or so, but that would be christian bashing according to people on here. Anyone have those numbers handy?

Christian in name only...and here in this case we have a WHITE European nation where Muslims stand out easily. Its safe to assume these were Muslims who committed the rapes. It is not safe to assume every white European is Christian...not anymore.

Read Judges 21: 10- 24. If I recall and understood it correctly, it was ok for men to kidnap women and girls and (take as wives) rape them. I'm sure I'll be told that that's not what it means and that because it was in the OT it doesn't apply.

It is for the men to take them as wives. As the Lord commanded. They needed wives! And the women needed husbands. Don't sit here in 2011 and judge their actions. Mores were far different back then and our modern "logic" doesn't always apply.

Numbers 31: 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Again, what's wrong with that? God didn't say RAPE THE GIRLS. He said take them for yourselves - in other words - marry them. Again, times were faaaaar different back then. We cannot sit here and judge them.

Aren't women supposed to submit to the dominance of man according to the bible? Seems they are treated like crap there too.

Wrong. Husbands and wives submit to each other!


Ephesians 5:21 "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" - please, if you will, interpret this verse Buzzard.

Originally Posted by Vizion

Christian in name only...and here in this case we have a WHITE European nation where Muslims stand out easily. Its safe to assume these were Muslims who committed the rapes. It is not safe to assume every white European is Christian...not anymore.


It is for the men to take them as wives. As the Lord commanded. They needed wives! And the women needed husbands. Don't sit here in 2011 and judge their actions. Mores were far different back then and our modern "logic" doesn't always apply.

Again, what's wrong with that? God didn't say RAPE THE GIRLS. He said take them for yourselves - in other words - marry them. Again, times were faaaaar different back then. We cannot sit here and judge them.

Wrong. Husbands and wives submit to each other!


Ephesians 5:21 "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" - please, if you will, interpret this verse Buzzard.

I'll try to interpret that later, but it still uses fear to subjugate them imo. I'll have to read the whole bit to get the proper context first.

My point was that women are treated as less than equals to men in the bible according to many passages that I have read.

Taking someone against their will is not right, no matter what day and age you are in imo.

[Vizion]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

I'll try to interpret that later, but it still uses fear to subjugate them imo. I'll have to read the whole bit to get the proper context first.

Really? If fear of God is the beginning of WISDOM then I guess fear of NOT doing the will of God is the hallmark of foolishness. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Buzzard

My point was that women are treated as less than equals to men in the bible according to many passages that I have read.

Men and women have different designs, yes? In ANCIENT times women were treated differently, but not to harm them, but to protect them. This did not make them unequal. Think about when women couldn't vote. What was the reason? To make them less equal to a man? No, it was to keep men from making women vote for the candidates they wanted. It was to prevent abuse.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Taking someone against their will is not right, no matter what day and age you are in imo.

How do you know [in this case] it was against their will? Seems to me these women were given the better end of the deal being taken by God's Own House of Israel, versus staying enemies of God they became part of the Tribe God Chose.