Symposium: To . an Unveiled Woman
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21502
By Jamie Glazov
March 7, 2006
A Muslim . epidemic in sweeping over Europe
-- and over many other nations host to immigrants from the Islamic world.
The direct connection between the .s and Islam is irrefutable, as Muslims
are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and . suspects.
The Muslim perpetrators themselves boast that their crime is justified since
their victims were, among other things, not properly veiled.
What is the psychology here? What is the significance of this epidemic? And
how do we face it when our own feminists, with a few exceptions, are
deafingly silent about it?
To discuss this issue with us today, we are joined by:
Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the
Palestinian Intifada. His new documentary, Suicide Killers, explores the
psychology of suicide bombers. It is based on interviews with the victims of
suicide bombers, the families of suicide bombers, would-be bombers
themselves, and experts on suicide killer mentality.
Nancy Kobrin, an affiliated professor to the University of Haifa, Arabist,
psychoanalyst and author of the upcoming book, The Sheikh's New Clothes:
Islamic Suicide Terror and What It's Really All About;
Peter Raddatz, a German scholar of Islamic Studies and the co-author of the
renowned "Encyclopaedia of Islam." He is the author of many books, including
From Allah to Terror? Jihad and the Western Deformation, Allah's Veil and
The Turkish Danger. In a few months he will publish World Risk Iran.
and
Gudrun Eussner, a journalist with a Ph.D at Free University Berlin,
specializing in mass communication and political science, and Iranian
philology. She has experience working in numerous Muslim countries,
including Bosnia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey,
Usbekistan and others.
FP: Pierre Rehov, Nancy Kobrin, Peter Raddatz and Dr. Gudrun Eussner welcome
to Frontpage Symposium.
Peter Raddaz let's begin with you.
A man sees a woman and she is not veiled. He thinks to himself: "Oh, I must
. her now."
No matter how much I try to figure this out, I can't. What's the mindset
here? If a person is upset that a woman is not veiled, it implies he wants
some kind of supposed "morality." But if he is thirsting for purity, how
does perpetrating a violent .ual atrocity against the "immoral" one fit
into moralizing her and the rest of society - and himself?
[ed. The same way the lefty does; two wrongs always make a right if enough
people at the thought-collective/madrassa says it does - remember "there are
no absolutes" therefore rules can be made up to suit...]
Raddatz: Your questions concerning mindset and morals put us right into the
middle of the problem. They are the terms any culture's collective
psychology is basing on. In the case of prevailing orthodox Islam we are
faced with a deep division between the .es. With Allah's unlimited ruling
license the males are entitled to be the masters of the females. The Koranic
order says that the man has to "go to the woman" whenever he likes, to
"enjoy her however he likes", and to discipline her in case she develops her
own ideas like .ual self-determination.
Over the centuries this basic frame had been filled with a lot of
"prophetic" instructions as to what disastrous role the woman could play if
the man as Allah's deputy does not carry out this divine license of
fertilizing control. Insofar the woman is looked upon from a "higher"
biologistic viewpoint regarding her as "seed field" that - under strict male
surveillance signaled by "Islamic correct" veiling - guarantees for the
continued survival and expansion of Islam.
We are dealing here with premodern, partly archaic thinking that divides its
world into two Manichaean halves. Irrespective of the usual statistical
remnant of liberal "dissidents", the orthodox ideology bases on an Islamic
half that accords to Koran and "prophetic" tradition and a non-Islamic half
consisting of unbelievers and disobedient women. The religious war - known
as "jihad" - against the latter two groups belongs, therefore, to the most
prominent duties of the "believing" Muslim. Its "religious" dimension is
boosted enormously by customary family "honor" installing male control from
early youth on, often widening into brutal raping, sometimes incestuous
punishing patterns. Here a complicated interaction between father, mother,
son and daughter comes into play about which, I guess, Dr. Kobrin will give
us quite interesting insights.
Thus, the ontological being in Islam is not defined by individual right but
clearly as integral part of the community in terms of a whole and "holy"
entirety. In this context the primary form of human being is seen in the
male that assumes the right and duty to assist Allah in conserving and
expanding his "umma", meaning his community.
Its biologistic "thinking" demands the "pure" man as the real human
dominating the "impure" woman as a lower form, rather close to some
animal-like existence. Therefore, .uality cannot be sublimated and has to
serve - aside from ramifications into homo-, paedo- and sodo-variants - a
basic double function: fertilizing and punishing.
This paradigm expresses itself not only in highly standardized family
patterns but also in an equally conformistic education system. All contents,
in school and university of almost every Islamic country, are ultimately
restricted and tied to Islamic purposes, thereby avoiding abstract thinking
categories that could relativate and jeopardize the dogma's absolute
uniqueness. By the same token, however, and this is the core of "modern"
Islam's tragedy, the male controllers are confined to physical methods of
"sublimation" whenever problems arise. Aside from the usual bombing
"protest" against Western "arrogance" and "unbelieving morals", the current
. wave is the vital expression of an ongoing jihad against women who
under Western influence may drift slowly out of the grip of male Muslim
hands.
The war character of this behaviour may become clearer from its archaic
punishment perspective that has come out of use generally but survived in
Islam until present times. During the Algerian independence war the freedom
fighters used to publicly sodomize French officers in order to achieve the
enemy's maximum degradation. The same applies to the woman as a possible
internal enemy containing even a double danger: her alleged disobedience is
a bio-political security risk for the Islamic entirety and her independent
"devilish" .uality represents a religious blasphemy, contaminating male
purity. Both have to be dealt with accordingly: beating, raping, torturing,
stoning, and killing.
While some UN organizations keep on complaining about this, the Western
feminists keep silent because they are not interested in the general problem
but rather concentrate on clutching to their few elitarian privileges,
mainly in business. Doing this they are simple part of a greater Western
mainstream that has started to adjust to Muslim immigrant political "sharia"
demands based on the growing radical Islamist influence as well as oil price
pressure. And mind you: keeping Muslim women obedient through male "honor"
might also sustain their "seed field" fertilization rate thereby
compensating for the Western "morals" of .ography and weak reproduction.
In this respect global elite ideology, anti-Semitic "new age" fascism and
Islam are not so far apart.
FP: Thank you Dr. Raddatz. Dr. Eussner?
Eussner: Thank you, Jamie. I agree with Peter: The survival and expansion of
Islam worldwide is the main goal of Islam since its invention by Mohammed.
In this respect, the history of Islamic conquest is self-explanatory. The
other aspect is the lack of appreciation for the individual as such. For
both, men and women, it is true, that there are no individual rights, but
for women it is even worse.
It may sound harsh, but the distinction between "fertilizing" and
"punishing" a woman is evident. On the one hand you have .uality as a tool
serving the expansion of Islam, and on the other hand there is .uality as
a weapon against disobedient and non-Muslim women, both categorized as
"unbelievers". Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women
"conquered" in jihad, this may be read in the Qur'an: they become slaves to
be used by the victors.
Why is the raping of unveiled women, either Muslim or non-Muslim, now
spreading widely in our countries?
The conduct towards these women is due to the new developments initiated by
Salafists like Tariq Ramadan. He has invented and introduced a new
definition for the Western countries: they should no longer be seen the
traditional way as Dar ul-harb, the space of war, but as Dar el-dawaà, the
invitation to Islam, or Dar ash-shahâda, the space of testimony.
While orthodox Sunni Muslims, stuck to the unchanged application of the
tradition are not at all in line with this "modern" interpretation, the
"scholar" Tariq Ramadan has paved a soft way for Muslims to take possession
of countries formerly belonging to the Dar ul-harb. When living in Dar
ul-harb there are two alternatives for the Muslims: either conquer the land
by force and rule it by Qur'anic law or, if not strong enough, keep quiet
and wait, not touching the property of the enemy.
Dar el-dawaà and Dar ash-shahâda are two of the trickiest inventions ever to
reach the goal of conquest: at a quick and superficial glance it means
resigning from the conversion of the West to Islam, permitting everybody to
keep on in his belief, but on closer examination that means what the French
call "l'entrisme", unnoticed penetration.
The Muslims are not living any longer in a hostile surrounding; they are
almost in Dar ul-Islam. Professor Nezvat Yalçintas, member of the Istanbul
parliament, made an interesting statement. During the inauguration of the
Murabitun mosque in Granada, Spain, in July 2003, he told the audience that
Paris, Rome, Madrid now were components of the Islamic world due to the
erection of new mosques.
But as Muslims are still obliged to wage a perpetual war against those
infidels who refuse to submit, the jihad is continuing in Dar ash-shahâda,
and people not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws have to be punished.
The trick of introducing these new definitions has a severe impact on
Muslims' consciousness, especially on young Muslim men. People not behaving
according to the Qur'anic laws are to be punished even stronger now. The
Muslims are not any more restricted by the laws of Dar ul-harb, that has
evaporated without notice, merely by changing the definition. The
inhabitants of our countries are to obey to Muslim male supremacy and
Qur'anic laws. What better a justification for conduct towards women?
The jihad against the infidels is conducted on each and every level, not
only as terror and suicide bombing. The jihad against women, who by their
behaviour in the public sphere, are "asking for .", as the Danish mufti
Shahid Mehdi, a Qur'an teacher of young Muslims in Copenhagen, put it in
2004, and/or towards their husbands, by their alleged disobedience are
challenging the survival and expansion of Islam, of the "Ummah", is a must
for the Muslim men.
As far as the Western feminists are concerned, they seem to be hovering in
other dimensions, in absolute arrogance, learned from ethnologues like
Claude Lévy-Strauss. For them, freedom is that each "culture" may it be as
inhuman as can be, is entitled to prosper even on our soil. The next act in
this surrealistic piece of stage play is the unlimited understanding that
Norwegian Professor Ms. Unni Wikan, shows for Muslims raping Western women:
Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these .s, as
they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The
Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a
multicultural society and adapt themselves to it, as Mark Steyn reported
already in 2002.
FP: Thank you Dr. Eussner. Mr. Rehov, your turn.
Rehov: There are very few observations that I can add to Dr Eussner's and Dr
Raddatz's surveys on both the cultural and religious seeds of the
phenomenon, although there is a personal dimension that I would like to
explore.
Of course, in a cultural environment where women are undermined, not to say
considered as second rate citizens or even dangerous to the dominant male,
the temptation to . as a result to " provocation " is great. Female
"provocation" in the Muslim society is usually a definition for the mildest
behavior. Smiling, singing, talking, being alone for one minute in the same
room as the rapist, having answered a question in an inappropriate way,
wearing clothes which are not strictly in obedience with what is locally
considered as the Muslim rules, all of these innocent behaviors are seen as
a misconduct authorizing "revenge."
In a society where . is absolutely forbidden, taboo, and where separation
between males and females is absolute, where in most cases marriages are not
the result of love but of a financial arrangement between two families, the
sensual or . aspect of any relationship between genders is, de-facto,
suspicious, considered evil, and therefore an act of aggression. .ual
"revenge", containing violence, can be naturally considered as the
automatic answer to the " provocations " described above, and this for two
reasons.
In Muslim society the male is dominant and almighty since he is made after
God, when women have been created as a necessary evil to tempt males. In
other words, the female body is the closest thing to the Devil, something
which has to be dominated as a proof a faith. We go back to the sacrifice of
Eros to Thanatos, as one of the basic sacrifices of all monotheisms, where,
since the origins of the Bible, first inspiration to the Koran, women have
been the carriers of the original sin.
In such a pattern, a male will not only consider any suspect behavior,
including the mildest one, as an evil temptation, but he might look forward
to experiencing one, as a religious challenge. Whatever will happen then
won't be the result of his own will, but he believes in having received
absolution in advance for an act that, he knows, is against his own religion.
During these minutes of deception and absolute power, he is not abusing a woman
but fighting the Devil inside.
Of course, primitive chauvinism is the second reason. Again, since males in
chauvinist societies are deprived of all natural pleasures resulting from
what we consider a normal relationship between men and women, beside .ual
ones, the level of frustration is very high and the fear of impotency even
higher. A male tempted must react. The automatic result to frustration and
fear is usually violence. In this case, .ual violence.
A friend of mine is a retired chief of police, who used to be in charge of
the security of a major city in the south of France. He reported to me that
his men had to face an average of 10 .s a week, 80% made by Muslim young
men. 30% being what we call, in French, a " tournante ", meaning that the
victim is being .d by an entire gang, one after the other, often during
an entire night. My friend reports that, in many cases, he was able to
locate and arrest the rapists, often very young ones, and, as part of the
investigation, call the families. He was astonished that, in most cases, the
parents not only would back up their rapist children, but also would not
even understand why they would be arrested. There is an instant shift in the
notion of good and evil as a major component of culture. The only evil those
parents would see, genuinely, is the temptation that the male children had
to face. Since in most cases the victims were not Muslims, the parents'
answer and rejection was even more genuine: how could their boys be guilty
of anything, when normally answering to a provocation by occidental women,
known for their unacceptable behavior?
Kobrin: Thanks, Jamie. So far I agree with everything the panel has said.
There are several layers to this tragedy which will ultimately occur here in
the United States, if it hasn't already. Why? Because other aspects of
Islamic practices in extremis, such as marriage under Sharia law but not
civil law, polygamy and clan practices of female genital mutilation in the
African Muslim immigrant populations persist even though FGM was outlawed in
1994.
I have it from first hand experience interviewing Muslim male immigrants
that they hate it here in the United States because if they raise their
hand, the women and children call the police. However, in the same breath,
these same women will defend their men because it is part of the fused
mentality and identification with the aggressor.
I interviewed Muslim women who justified wife beating because it is
"educational." These women were probably brutalized as little girls and are
unable to know NOT to blame the unveiled woman victim. Every Muslim male and
female that I have interviewed has experienced being beaten as a child and
have witnessed the beating of their mother.
. is learned behavior in the home. Peter is absolutely correct in
describing the insidious .ual dichotomy of Muslim male supremacy over the
lowly denigrated female. Pierre underscored the degree to which a family
will defend its own rapist because of alleged "honor." Why should it
surprise us that they have moved out into the streets and feel entitled to
.?
At the ideological level which Gudrun has so aptly introduced into this
discussion, we encounter the classic practice of taqiya, lit. 'guarding
one's self' more commonly thought of dissimulation and its insidious behavior
of orchestrating jihad by every possible means in a clandestine manner. . is
just one more weapon in the jihadi arsenal for Dar el-dawaa and Dar
ash-shahada. While the labels may change, Muslim male .ual inadequacies,
to put it mildly, remain the same and their rage is inflicted brutally on
the other. I do not recall ever reading in the literature on . as a
weapon of war that the underlying issue of child .ual abuse is probably
the precursor for such despicable behavior. The .ual norms of the Arab
Muslim world are totally different. As a psychoanalyst and trauma expert, if
there is physical violence going on in the home, I always wonder about
.ual abuse and the perpetrator parents.
These Muslim rapists are essentially babies, as they show us their pathetic
need to target the most vulnerable because they are completely emasculated.
They cannot control themselves .ually and they are .ually confused as
well. Power, aggression, rage and . yield a near lethal mix arising out of
bizarre family dynamics which they experienced growing up.
They are directly attacking not only the venerable Western female but also
the . should be thought of as a kind of ambush on the Western male.
I never really bought the argument that Bouyeri murdered Theo van Gogh
because of the film -- Submission. Sure that was part of it but the fact
that Van Gogh called the Jihadis - a fifth column of goat f--kers must have
really hit Bouyeri where it hurt and he lost it - I might add, shortly after
his mother died. To be a goat herder is to be on the lowest rung. Male
children are routinely treated as if they were goats. The pet goat is also
slaughtered and eaten. Again the imagery goes hand in glove with the
dissociated, denied behaviors and ideologies. . is a forced .ual
fusion. The rapists remain .ally fused to their mothers upon whom they
completely depend emotionally but hate it.
As for the Western feminists in academe who have completely sold out to
political correctness, they too remain clueless as to what their behavior
tells us about themselves. They function as another fused family who must go
to extreme lengths to defend these male rapists as well. I would assume that
at some level these feminists must really be terrified because if they were
to take a hard look, they would have to admit to themselves that they might
be next.
FP: I think you have hit the nail on the head, but I do not think the
radical feminists are afraid of being next. From my study of the Left, they
crave to be next and that is why they support these dark forces. They yearn
to submit to the dark forces of totalitarianism and even to be devoured by
them. It is the same death-wish virus that motivated many Western communists
to go to Stalinist Russia to supposedly build communism, when they actually
only went to their deaths, giving their lives for an idea that butchered
them.
Dr. Raddatz, go ahead.
Raddatz: There seems to be a remarkable consent among ourselves on the
subject, contrary however, to the official "Islamic correct" reception on
Western elite level. Here we can register a very modest resonance to the
rising wave of violence against Muslim women. In Europe, for instance, we
have a whole species of literature at hand in which female authors from
Islamic countries give us personal experience reports on their respective
lives with male violence in their families. The public discussion on this
was and still is close to zero and the current . wave has not given much
incentive to it.
In Germany in 1960, in words: sixty so-called scientists from all thinkable
and unthinkable departments, foundations, institutes and what have you
published an "appeal" in "Die Zeit", a renowned weekly paper. Here they
warned against a "general suspicion" the Western societies may spread over
all Muslims in case they keep on criticizing "the few" who act violently
against their women. By the same token they themselves criticized a
German-Turkish female sociologist for her book on her personal youth
experience with family violence as well as the inability of the vast
majority of Turkish immigrants to integrate into the German society. Here we
see another case of the Western decadence game called "victim turning
perpetrator" which is constantly gaining aggressive elements among
European - male - "intellectuals".
Earlier in this discussion, Nancy Kobrin described the central role the
mother-son-relation is playing in this cynical game, how . is functioning
as substitute measure punishing the mother for eternalizing the male
dependence on her, irrespective of the usual imitation reflex following the
parental violence behaviour. The personal literary reports and the official
UN analyses on Islamic family dynamics concur in a somewhat disquieting
aspect. They confirm not only the tendency to incest but also an even
stronger attitude towards anal .uality, meaning an unusually high
percentage of males preferring anal intercourse to vaginal, especially in
the framework of "normal" marital life.
Nancy certainly knows much more about this but the so far irrefutable
Freudian theory, the "Anatomy of Human Perversion", offers en explanation
which might give us some additional insight. According to this the phallic
organization of infantile .uality if kept from diversification, for
instance by Oedipal defectiveness, develops into a general male dominance
neglecting the female i.e. vaginal "specialty" altogether. In the adult
phase neglect turns into semi-conscious contempt and hate for all female
attributes forcing the pervert to physically prefer anus to vagina and
verbally compare women with animals and even feces. All this is vastly
manifest in the texts of Islamic tradition and daily confirmed in the
regrettable practice of actual Islamic life.
If Western "elites" are not able to openly discuss these deficits they
indicate their readiness to assume similar attitudes and possibly destruct
the grown order. The growing aggression against women as well as the obvious
sympathy for homo- and paedo-.uality put them closer to Islamic
preferences and may even signal a meta-social trend that could lead back
into pre-modern i.e. totalitarian structures. Insofar we are not only
dealing with a mere mode of the Left as Jamie implies, but also with a
Neo-fascist thinking frame that wants to install Islam unchanged and
incessantly demands "respect" for its adored wholeness.
FP: Dr. Raddatz, could you kindly, in simple terms, explain what you mean
when you refer to "the phallic organization of infantile .uality" being
kept from "diversification"? What exactly is "oedipal defectiveness" and why
and how does it develop "into a general male dominance" that neglects the
female vagina, etc.? Break this down into simple terms for me and our
readers. This is obviously crucial because it is the foundation to the
pathology in the culture under examination.
Raddatz: I will at least try to put this matter into somewhat simpler terms,
as it is a very complicated problem indeed. It gets even more complicated as
the relativistic development of modern Western science often obscures the
view into those contexts, especially if they concern other cultures. Take
for instance what I refer to as "the phallic organization of infantile
.uality". Basically it means that the Koran and Tradition are the
fundamentals of Islamic societies and are centered around the maximization
of male potency. Upon certain festivities like circumcision and others all
family members fondle and even kiss the "member" of male babies, speak
respective magic formulas and donate money notes to activate Allah's mercy
for its future fertilizing power.
The term "infantile" in this respect does not stop at individual male
dominance from juvenile age on. It also concerns an infantile society from
the anthropological point of view. Western psychology has declared the
Freudian theory of "penis envy" as obsolete. The Muslim theory represents
the opposite. Since a millennium ago here the . theologians circle around
one and the same project: the optimized spreading and utilization of
collective semen by elevation of man, repression of woman, polygamy, .
and marital law. Even Allah bows to the penis power: She, who wants to pray
rather than to have .ual intercourse, is a sinneress. And Muhammad bowed
to those who wanted to fornicate with prostitutes during pilgrimage, leading
to the world famous tradition of "dripping penises in Mecca".
What do these practices tell us? Above all they lead us back into pre-modern
if not pre-cultural times. Cave drawings show hunters killing big animals
while their erected penises are connected through a power line with vaginas
of the group' s women. In other words, without dominating women men cannot
rule freely - i.e. neglecting the natural order - over the society. This is
a very old, pre-modern truth, obviously still deeply rooted in Islam,
thereby preventing this culture from .ual and ethical emancipation. Female
existence is felt as being lower than the animal stage, and satisfying
female .uality is, therefore, psychotically feared as "devilish"
temptation which leads us right into our second point, the "oedipal
defectiveness".
Men who have been raised as omnipotent family monarchs, some sort of alpha
males with a penis as irrefutable power instrument, things may get difficult
in the adult age. As I pointed out before, and Nancy Kobrin has described so
clearly, incest is one of the biggest social problems in Islam, and incest
at last is also connected inseparably to the Oedipus complex. It is the
meta-historical expression of breaking the world order by elevating the
narcissistic omnipotence of man. As this obviously cannot find the basic
fulfillment though reuniting with the mother, it "sublimates" its
frustration by repressing, punishing and raping women. The male principle
culminates in itself, thereby forced to destruct instead of construct, to
express itself not in terms of products but in "disducts" - like feces - and
to ultimately drift from vagina to anus. There is no "culture" in the world
where more married people practice anal intercourse than in Islam.
Individually it is again connected to a regression of the adult person into
a childhood ego-idea closing the Oedipal circle of hating the female
uniqueness one more time.
There can be no doubt that homo.uality is on a strong march forward, and
there can be even less doubt that "disducts" like vomit and feces are also
gaining popularity as means of expression on theater stages as well as in
films and on television. Watch also the many other aesthetic aspects to this
phenomenon like the diminishing degree of light in films, the growing
majority of black clothing instead of bright colors, the spreading
primitivity of "art" and so on. Not to speak of the biological regression
into which a whole myriad of reasons against children has converged.
Needless to say that the grown order and its society has to be replaced by
an "order" that functions on a counter basis as opposite and alien as
possible. The late Michel Foucault is the most efficient priest of this
project.
What we are watching here is an ultra long-term, meta-historical process,
which cannot be influenced on a short-term basis - one of the reasons why it
is so difficult to explain and why I must apologize for having been quite
academic again. This process simply exceeds the limits of human
feasibilities and our lifetimes as well. It is the consequent inexorability
of its "progress" that stuns everybody who observes it. All we can do is to
be conscious of it and talk and write against it where ever our creator has
put us.
Meanwhile we can enjoy people who recognize that the creation does not come
from man but contains men and women as unity inside an order which is
compatible with their minds. The goal of the non-system, however, is the
abolishment of every known system, the break of the human mind, the total
change from perpetrator to victim, from the old reality to a "New Age, the
ultimate return into chaos where we - allegedly - come from. On its way
there this "thinking" regards Islam as the most attractive companion as it
has "achieved" the most important prerequisite already - the absence of
"old" ethics.
FP: Dr. Eussner, your turn.
Eussner: Let me answer Pierre Rehov first. I agree in what you said about
experiencing religious challenge, the proof of faith, Pierre. The religious
task of fighting the Devil inside may be achieved in abusing unveiled women.
But this is only half of the story, the religious side. The political side
is even more important, as political Islam is using religion as a pretext,
as a manipulating tool. The message given to the Muslim women in Muslim and
in Western countries is: you don't ask for nothing, neither for equal
treatment nor for liberty, otherwise you will be punished, i.e. beaten and
.d.
A disobedient woman is outlawed. The high percentage of gang raping is due
to the cowardliness of the young Muslim men, in France named "les jeunes",
the youngsters. As their religion is never appreciating the individuum as
such, but only as part of the Ummah, "les jeunes" are not strong enough on
their own, so they are acting as representatives of the Ummah, fighting
unbelievers, disobedient and unveiled women.
This is consented to by the families. You said it in mentioning your friend,
the retired chief of police: the parents of the rapist children don't
understand why their children were arrested. This is showing their close
attachment to Islamic law, the sharia. In midst of our Western society they
are living according to their law, which is not compatible to our values and
laws.
Allow me to please comment on the very interesting comments you made, Nancy
Kobrin. Your words support what Pierre said for Europe. The Muslim male
immigrants hate it in the USA because they are not totally free to live
according to the sharia. Women and children are entitled to call the police
and sometimes do. But Muslim women are submitted to their law, they defend
their men, they identify with the aggressor. They are afraid of the men.
Islam rules by force and violence. And the young Muslim men, living
somewhere at the end of a hierarchy of Muslim men, starting with Mohammed at
the top and themselves at the bottom, they are indeed essentially babies who
are not able to control themselves. Targeting the most vulnerable parts of
the society is a typical sign of totalitarian regimes.
Political Islam, that is an Islam not only confined to the mosques and the
private spiritual life but ruling through the sharia, leads to fear and
submission. And we find today, that this fear is spreading into our Western
society. Government authorities and offices, media, educational
institutions, political parties, intellectuals and feminists are submitting
themselves to Islamic claims and laws. The Islamization of our societies is
in the making. Step by step we are pulling back. We are not defending our
values, but we are submitting to the outrageous claims of dictatorial
Islamic governments. What better an example as the handling of the
publication of 12 Danish cartoons!
And, Peter, you said it: there is a very modest resonance to the raising
wave of violence against Muslim women. Even worse: in Germany we are not
only facing opposition by ignorant ministries, government authorities and
media against the reality Muslim women are facing, but a whole bunch of
social scientists are running down testimonies and reports by the victims.
Turkish female academics testifying about the situation of Muslim women in
our society, talking about forced marriages, beating and ., are torn down
by multi-culti loving leftist social scientists. In my research work on the
campaign against the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut I came across a
feminist in favour of the head scarf, who is understanding fully the rioting
Muslim youngsters, that is the Allah Houakhbar shouting mob of the French
suburbs, and to round it off, cooperating closely with the Salafist Web Site
Oumma.com and a so-called Third World Solidarity Center, supporting Tali
Fahima and thanking Yasser Arafat for his valuable contribution: "Choukran
Abu Amar!"
FP: Pierre Rehov?
Rehov: Answering first to Dr Raddatz, I'd like to stay a little bit away
from any kind of Freudian approach to the problem. In some ways, I believe
that Freudism is a tool to explain many problems and behaviors in an
involved civilization, most of those problems being generated by the
"taboos" of this civilization.
When talking about "." by young Muslims, I think that our usual
approaches don't apply anymore. What builds a Muslim young male's ego is
very far away from what we consider as part of the subconscious of any young
male in a modern Judeo-Christian society. I am not sure, for instance, that
a Freudian approach could explain the level of fear towards Witches, or the
violence generated by Inquisition during the dark ages of Christianity.
Freudian- in my opinion - is not a tool to understand behaviors connected to
the irrational. Although, of course, I am not a psychiatrist, not an
analyst.
Back to our rapists, I would make it simple by saying that genuine
frustration, combined with a high contempt toward women, as a result of a
culture in which women are classified way under men, leads to an
instinctive - animal type - behavior, not censored nor punished by common
cultural values.
Inside the Palestinian territories, I collected a lot of different stories
involving raping of an innocent girl who later on was slaughtered by her own
father or cousin, because she had lost her virginity.
This example to say that, in Muslim culture, values exist, but the line
between good and evil is drawn somewhere else, far away from our
understanding. Protecting women against themselves is considered a good
action, even if this includes death penalty, as long as family's honor -
which is paramount - is saved.
When Dr. Eussner adds to my previous comments that religion is only half of
the explanation, and that we mustn't forget the political aims, I could not
agree more. Although I'd like to emphasize that in the Muslim world,
religion and politics is one single thing. There is no separation between
powers in any Muslim society and the ideal Muslim society accepts the
Shari'ah (Muslim law, written in the Koran ) as the basis for any civil
society, including its rules of punishment.
In addition, I can see in any raping of a non-Muslim woman by a Muslim male
as a racist action, and it is high time for us to acknowledge and condemn
it. The level of contempt towards non-Muslim women is the reflection of the
level of hatred towards the society which creates equality between men and
women. We all know that there is a .ual component in any form of racism. I
personally see primitive racism as the expression of a fear connected to the
unconscious protection of the genes among the males. Raping women belonging
to another cultural, religious group or race is an act of male domination
not only against the woman herself, but against the entire group in which
she belongs.
Therefore, we have to differentiate two types of rapings: the aims are
different whether the victim is a Muslim or a non-Muslim. In the second
case, hatred is added to contempt.
FP: Nancy Kobrin, last word goes to you.
Kobrin: People are more similar than they are different. However, the devil
is in the details.
Everything is always already psycho.ual. . by definition is
psycho.ual, obviously. It is one thing to have . fantasies which is
very common (cf. M. Bader. Arousal: The Secret Logic of .ual Fantasies,
Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press, 2002). It is quite another not to
have any boundaries and to inflict ., which is a forced .ual fusion.
This concretely expresses the inability to be separate and independent. It
is pure aggression, rage and severe separation anxiety. The Arab Muslim
culture by definition promotes an incested family, a "closed circle", and
their "Freud" is Abdelwahab Bouhdiba, .uality in Islam, Saqi Books, 1998.
If you read French, it's been available since 1975 in the original.
[1] This brings me to Freud. He is not as western as people would like to
think. In fact he held strong identifications with Sephardic culture since
his adolescence as expressed by a significant body of correspondence (before
e-mail) in Spanish with his childhood Rumanian Jewish friend Edouard
Silberstein. Elsewhere I have argued that his romance with Spanish was his
"private Ladino" which served him better than Yiddish which was often
stigmatized. The Sephardic culture of Andalusia and its over-idealized
Golden Age provided a much-needed psychological refuge for the young Freud
facing severe anti-Semitism in Vienna where he was growing up. He needed to
cling to a fantasy of convivencia/ coexistence. He was also aware of the
Ottoman Empire's history of breathing down Europe's neck. It has been
western philosophical tradition which co-opted Freud to its various ends
while at the same time never able to see this special emotional tie that
Freud had. For Muslims Sephardic and Mizrahi cultures and their Jews are
most especially threatening because they are so similar up to a point and
the fear is one of merging with the Other and losing their fragile sense of
self. The jihadis are terrified of them because they raise the question of
imitation and inauthenticity. The radical Islamists and to a lesser extent
the Ummah harbor such fears of being fraudulent. The identities are
intertwined, even geopolitically.
[2] This brings me to the recent tragic death of 23 yr old Ilan Halima z"l,
baited and tortured to death. We have seen this time and again before. This
is yet another psycho.ual tactic in the arsenal of terrorism along with
gang . and suicide bombing. These strategies to annihilate the Other
which is always perceived as female should be read functionally and by this
I mean, that imagery is key. The terrorists think visually. I recently read
Dr. Temple Grandin's Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism and her other
book co-authored with Catherine Johnson, Animals in Translation: Using the
Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior, Scribner, 2005. I do not mean
to say that terrorists are simply autistic. It is more complicated than that
but their behaviors such as gang . is terror-driven and similar to the
rapist roosters who . and murder hens when they have been bred
incorrectly because this is not normal for roosters. "There is no species
alive in nature where half the males kill reproductive-age females."
(Grandin, Animals in Translation, p.70)
In my work on Islamic suicide terrorism, I have noted that the rage is
really against the prenatal Muslim mother, misdirected to the infidels who
represent her in the jihadi mind's eye. Interestingly enough, Grandin also
notes that "humans have neotenized dogs: without realizing it, humans have
bred dogs to stay immature for their entire lives." (P.86) I would
substitute the word "bred" for concepts like child-rearing practices, etc.
And raise the question as can it be that Arab Muslim boys turned rapists
have been "neotenized", that is raised to stay immature for their entire
lives?
Finally, the scariest thing of all of this is when bad becomes normal.
Quoting Grandin: "The really bad thing was that the change happened slowly
enough [talking about the rapist roosters] that the farmers and probably the
breeder colonies, too didn't realize they'd created a monster. Nobody
noticed what was happening. As the roosters got more and more aggressive,
the humans unconsciously adjusted their perceptions of how a normal rooster
should act. It was a case of the bad becoming normal, . . . [emphasis
mine]." (p.72)
Those who defend the rapists and their culture (no matter where they are
located on the spectrum of politics) have unconsciously adjusted their
perceptions of how Muslim males should act. They have done so because at
some unconscious disavowed level they themselves are terrified. I am not
advocating "compassion" for them because they are terrified. That is their
problem and I refuse to blame the victim. However, I am advocating
understanding the problem at the deepest level possible for ourselves
because it is crazy making and we need to stay grounded in what is predicted
to be a very long marathon on terrorism. The Israelis say between 300 to 500
years and considering the transgenerational transmission of trauma, to my
analytic ear that sounds just about right. Thank you Jamie and your staff at
FrontPageMag.com along Dr. Raddatz, Dr. Eussner and Mr. Rehov as it has been
for me a thought provoking exchange.
FP: Pierre Rehov, Nancy Kobrin, Peter Raddatz and Dr. Gudrun Eussner, thank
you for joining Frontpage Symposium.
--
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
|