Monday, 10 January 2011

The Rape of Aisha

A large part of the protection of younger girls from older predatory boys in traditional British society is the peer derision such relationships would attract; such boys would be loudly and publicly excoriated as 'paedos' and 'nonces'. A white chav lad driving about in an Astra equipped with boom-box, under chassis LEDs and 12 year old girl is simply not cool; he wouldn't last five minutes on the streets of our working class communities. 


So what I really want to know is whether Pakistani boys who 'date' much younger girls are open to the same peer pressure? Or whether the Prophet's betrothal to Aisha when she was nine, and his deflowering of her by the time she was twelve, provides these boys with some sort of moral rationale?

9 comments:

Sackerson said...

I shouldn't think so, R. More to do with the attitude of true believers towards despicable infidels; and the perception (which I also encountered in Cyprus in 1970-ish among Greeks) that Western girls are slappers - just look at the way they dress like whores (hot pants were "in") and have no chaperones. Plus the young man thing of "anything you can get away with".

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I don't think "date" is the word you are looking for here.

Don Cox said...

I think the Pakistani attitude is the usual attitude of ignorant colonials to half-clothed native girls.

Chris said...

I think it comes down to an attitude of "Kuffir girls don't count", a local instance of the universal "not in your own street/social circle" rule.

You see a very similar thing on the Mediterranean party islands, and in party cities (New Orleans, Miami, etc.): tourist girls are deemed fair game whose own behaviour rarely dissuades their... suitors.

Sean said...

Yup its interesting that they in this case (Derby) the Rotherham case and the Bradford case (that I know off) were mainly targeting middle class girls.

Maybe they know that targeting working class girls will mean a visit from the natives with baseball bats, and targeting middle class ones will probably not mean a visit from the police, and even if they do come a callin' it will be in order to "work with the community"

What is it again? 15% of the prison population and 2% of the general population?

DP111 said...

Its all about supremacy. Muslims regard Infidels with contempt. Thus to kidnap, rape Infidel women and girls shows to them they are superior, as well as Infidel men are so weak they cannot protect their own women.

This situation is common wherever Muslim have access to Infidel women. Christians in Muslim countries or Hindus in India.

What is surprising is that it has happened so early in Europe, as Muslims are no where near a majority. The one reason I can think off is, Muslims have been give protection from the authorities, because their behaviour was giving rise to a hatred of Islam. Thus Muslims feel they can get away with it.

It also means that the governments in Europe will pass hate speech laws, which primarily protect Islam from any criticism. It is well expressed here

Thus if it is the case that Muslims seek to spread sharia law and subdue all non-Muslim societies, that is bad, therefore to say that Muslims seek to spread sharia law and subdue all non-Muslim societies is racist and hateful. If it is the case that Muslims commonly commit "honor killings" against their female relatives, that seems worse, therefore to say that Muslims commit honor killings is even more racist and hateful. And if it is the case that Muslims sometimes commit "family rape," that is even more disturbing, and so to say that Muslims commit family rape is even more racist and hateful. The worse Muslims actually are, the more hateful is it for Westerners to speak the truth about them, and the greater the punishment such Westerners must receive.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018377.html

Western governments have no option, or else the truth will come out that they have put the existence of Western civilisation at risk.

non mouse said...

As you surely know, Raedwald, we have to be careful about how we present the glorious prophet's propensities ... age for betrothals/marriage was often young in his day, especially among aristocrats (who were a predatory breed (the conquerers), after all).

The point is that Westerners took a stand against the damage caused to girls who were not old enough to become mothers in any sense, especially because they were not physically equipped to bear children.

To preserve lives is one thing; to provide children with educated, loving, wise, mothers is also important. Consequently, they developed rules about age at consummation, etc. So present-day refusal to accept the laws, mores, and the logic behind them, is nothing short of barbarous.

To say nothing of the refusal to accept the Judaeo-Christian priniciple of using this life as a vehicle for movement towards Charity: i.e. Love of God.

Raedwald said...

Wise words, non mouse.

Yes, we have early betrothal and marriage in our history, too, but we also have both the first and second Enlightenments which as you point out led to changes that protected children and the innocent from both the abuse of their bodies and the endangerment of their souls. As much as the Enlightenments have been painted as movements away from God, their consequences have been profoundly Christian.

The fact that neither Islam nor Africa nor Asia have undergone endogenous Enlightenment means that commitment towards 'Western' humanistic standards and mores is often a matter of political expediency rather than a moral revision.

non mouse said...

Well put, Raedwald (Cyning). Thank you.