February 18, 2026 at 12:55 PM

Why Not Be Opposed to Rape?

@OldBathos

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Does Islam owe its existence to rape? Its founder had only a handful of followers until he declared that there was a divine imperative to raid, rape and enslave, after which young men from raiding tribal cultures flocked to the new movement. He expressly urged young Arab men to go after the “yellow-eyed” (apparently some reference to blond Byzantine women) as a religiously endorsed mission. As the expanding Islamic empire entered its third century, the pagan Vikings had established a thriving business of taking captured, fair-complexion Slavic women downriver to satisfy the ravenous demands of Muslim slave markets.

If anyone thinks this is an abandoned archaic practice or value, I would invite a look at the attitudes and behaviors of young Muslim men in Rotherham, UK, in Germany or in Sweden. Islam does not evolve or grow out of attitudes or practices. It is bound by the literally misogynistic directives of its founder, who also once declared that the majority of denizens of hell were women condemned due to ingratitude and general bitchiness. Men may have four wives (Mohammed later received a divine directive to exempt himself from any such limitation), but an unlimited number of infidel female captives.

Famous heretic Salman Rushdie once opined that Mohammed was making it up as he went along, with no clear plan other than establishing rules of deference to himself. Seemingly as a result of that ad hoc pattern, there is a weirdly disjointed quality in Shariah law in which early Muslim clerics tried to base the system on the “perfect example” of their Prophet.

For example, in Pakistan, where Shariah law was codified in the 1970s with respect to zina (adultery), two women who claimed to have been raped but who could not produce four adult male Muslim witnesses were deemed to have confessed to adultery and thus subject to death by stoning or 100 lashes. (The punishment depends on age and status.)

That this requirement of four male witnesses seems like a remarkably stupid evidentiary rule, thus calls for determining its origin: The Prophet’s very young wife was carried in a palanquin when the group was travelling. Once, at a resting stop, she slipped out and fell asleep in some shady spot. The bearers did not notice the weight change (and were not supposed to initiate conversation), and thus the group left her behind. She returned to camp on the back of a horse ridden by one of the Prophet’s lieutenants, which caused tongues to wag. She was questioned by her husband and denied any impropriety, as did her rescuer. Three of the men under his command reported that they had caught up with him within minutes and witnessed no impropriety. The Prophet declared himself satisfied that nothing untoward had happened. And from that boring little story about an older husband afraid of rumors about his much younger wife and a young man, we get the rule about requiring four Muslim male witnesses (and not believing a woman, even the wife of the Prophet).

(Note: Those two Pakistani women were not executed because it would have caused international outrage and embarrassed wealthier, more cosmopolitan Pakistanis. The law was amended in 2006 to eliminate the automatic inference of adultery, but zina is still a capital offense.)

October 7th involved numerous sexual assaults and the rape of hostages. We even saw cheering, brave jihadis around the partially clothed corpse of a woman on the back of a pickup. Hamas denied any such sexual violence to minimize adverse international judgments, even as perpetrators proudly shared videos. And why not? Raping infidel women, especially Jews, is not merely permitted but expressly praiseworthy.

Islam neither encourages introspection nor critical examination in general. I recall a video of a female Muslim student at Columbia at one of the countless rallies against Israel’s right to exist, where she referred to the evils of Western colonialism, of which Israel was allegedly a part. The hypocrisy of any Muslim complaining about colonialism and the general lack of awareness in that student gathering was stunning.

Islam’s version of “colonialism” was to exterminate local culture, language and religion. That is why there are now 22 Arab Nations. Ten million Africans and fourteen million Europeans and other Christians were enslaved, starting seven centuries before Columbus and not ending until raw (mostly British) Western power forced its end (e.g., Egypt in 1895, Iran in 1929, Saudi Arabia/Yemen in 1962...). And there were riots to protest this imposition of infidel values. Further, it is noteworthy that when the evil victorious French and British governments divvied up the territory of the defeated Ottoman empire in WWI, no mosques were burned, no forced conversions, and no one enslaved, unlike the norm in Islamic "colonialism."

Muslim college students do not do land acknowledgments about the people who once occupied those places. Nor do they critically examine the crimes of genocide and sexual violence in their history. Western students do that kind of analysis precisely because such acts were contrary to the values that Western culture instilled in them. When Europeans indulged in slavery and conquest, they were no different from or worse than Arabs, Aztecs, Zulus or Mongols and all others throughout the ages who used a time of superior power to subjugate others.

However, unlike every other conqueror, the West abolished slavery, fostered self-determination and democracy in former colonies and in time threw off practices and institutions at odds with fundamental Western moral values. Our college kids are badly confused about almost everything, but they are not wrong that slavery and conquest were not consonant with Western values. However, how they generally deal with that (abolishing the culture that taught them to reject such practices) has not been very insightful or salutary. They don't seem to recognize what makes Western history distinct from other empires or expansionist people in world history.

Young keffiyeh-clad American women who would consider it assault to be called “honey” or “babe” implicitly endorse the most misogynistic culture on the planet with their addiction to politically correct self-congratulation. That pathetic cognitive condition prevents recognizing the need for a clear-eyed, rights-based sisterhood that should include rebellious Iranian women, Nigerian Christians, Yazidi girls, Tibetan women and most of the Islamic world.

It is not “-phobic”, racist nor xenophobic to demand that persons granted the legal, moral, social and economic benefits that come from living in the world’s most successful culture expressly reject any and all beliefs, tenets or doctrines that justify rape or any form of violence against women. Expressly promoting that ideal should be a fundamental, non-negotiable element of foreign policy. That Western women do not unanimously demand that is a spectacular deficiency. If this brain-dead submission to PC were to persist, it could even prove to be a fatal weakness for civilization and a long-term setback for the rights and dignity of all women. Rape and sexual violence are bad. Why isn't that a core value without exception and not subject to the ever-shifting verbiage of political correctness?

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (39)

CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
cdor@cdor34w
What a fantastic analysis, OB! The hypocrisy and, quite frankly, stupidity of young Western women almost concurs with Mohammed's misogynist attitude. How can these women support such disgusting self-degrading ideas inherent in the Islamic world? I believe the lack of self- confidence being inculcated in Western youth due to a terrible education system that holds most of our Western value system in disdain, is at the heart of these foolish destructive attitudes. Thanks for a very educational post.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
She@She34w
Yes. https://evebarlow.substack.com/p/predators. Please pay particular attention to the clips featuring United Nations darling Francesca Albanese. Essentially she is saying, "So what if there was mass rape on October 7 and beyond?" Some feminist and defender of the rights of women, she.
I am the proud daughter of British Colonialism. Was it perfect? Certainly not. Were some aspects of it horrible? Undoubtedly. But there is what I know of my early life, and there is this, from my father, written some forty years after his retirement from the British Colonial Service:
Even as I write this last chapter, a thirty-five year old mother of four has been put under sentence of death by stoning in Sokoto, because two years after she was divorced by her husband, she gave birth to a baby daughter.
Had she sought to remarry, she would have been allowed to do so after four months, having undergone the obligatory iddah, or waiting through several menstrual cycles in order to make certain she was not carrying her former husband’s child.
Since, however, she did not seek remarriage, the Islamic Court that tried her held her to be guilty of adultery (as opposed to mere fornication) by having had intercourse with a man other than the husband who had divorced her. The man in the case was discharged because there were not four witnesses to his act of intercourse.
In the case of the woman, however, the baby was evidence enough!
Unless, therefore, she can convince the Shariya Appeal Court that the child she bore was the result of a “deferred pregnancy” i.e. had been carried in her womb since before her divorce and was, in fact, the result of intercourse with her former husband while they were still married, (or unless the judgement itself can otherwise be overturned), then she might well be stoned--buried naked in the sand, with her hands bound together in her lap, in a sitting position, and then be pelted with stones until she is dead.
How could Northern Nigeria, once the Jewel in the Crown of the African Empire, have come to such a pass? When Sir Abubakar the Sultan, or Yahaya, Emir of Gwandu or Sir Usman Nagogo of Katsina, or indeed any other of the fifteen First Class Chiefs (all of whom, except for the Waziri of Sokoto) presided over their own Courts, with powers of life and death) were parties to the administration of justice, such a gross, medieval, travesty of it could never have been contemplated.
Nor would the Sardauna have countenanced it. either. He had, after all, personally initiated the Declaration on Religious Toleration and had steered the reform of the Northern legal system to stand for all time as an integral part of Nigeria’s Constitutional Arrangements after Lancaster House. In the implementation of both of these, I was either the initial draftsman or else had played a not inconsiderable part in achieving their resolution.
I am not ashamed that my country, and my heritage, attempted to put a stop to such barbarity.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
cdor@cdor34w
ReplyingtoShe
She (View Comment):
Yes. https://evebarlow.substack.com/p/predators. Please pay particular attention to the clips featuring United Nations darling Francesca Albanese. Essentially she is saying, “So what if there was mass rape on October 7 and beyond?” Some feminist and defender of the rights of women, she.
I am the proud daughter of British Colonialism. Was it perfect? Certainly not. Were some aspects of it horrible? Undoubtedly. But there is what I know of my early life, and there is this, from my father, written some forty years after his retirement from the British Colonial Service:
Even as I write this last chapter, a thirty-five year old mother of four has been put under sentence of death by stoning in Sokoto, because two years after she was divorced by her husband, she gave birth to a baby daughter.
Had she sought to remarry, she would have been allowed to do so after four months, having undergone the obligatory iddah, or waiting through several menstrual cycles in order to make certain she was not carrying her former husband’s child.
Since, however, she did not seek remarriage, the Islamic Court that tried her held her to be guilty of adultery (as opposed to mere fornication) by having had intercourse with a man other than the husband who had divorced her. The man in the case was discharged because there were not four witnesses to his act of intercourse.
In the case of the woman, however, the baby was evidence enough!
Unless, therefore, she can convince the Shariya Appeal Court that the child she bore was the result of a “deferred pregnancy” i.e. had been carried in her womb since before her divorce and was, in fact, the result of intercourse with her former husband while they were still married, (or unless the judgement itself can otherwise be overturned), then she might well be stoned–buried naked in the sand, with her hands bound together in her lap, in a sitting position, and then be pelted with stones until she is dead.
How could Northern Nigeria, once the Jewel in the Crown of the African Empire, have come to such a pass? When Sir Abubakar the Sultan, or Yahaya, Emir of Gwandu or Sir Usman Nagogo of Katsina, or indeed any other of the fifteen First Class Chiefs (all of whom, except for the Waziri of Sokoto) presided over their own Courts, with powers of life and death) were parties to the administration of justice, such a gross, medieval, travesty of it could never have been contemplated.
Nor would the Sardauna have countenanced it. either. He had, after all, personally initiated the Declaration on Religious Toleration and had steered the reform of the Northern legal system to stand for all time as an integral part of Nigeria’s Constitutional Arrangements after Lancaster House. In the implementation of both of these, I was either the initial draftsman or else had played a not inconsiderable part in achieving their resolution.
I am not ashamed that my country, and my heritage, attempted to put a stop to such barbarity.
I find it unfathomable that we are still debating the sickness that is Islam in the 21st Century. These people call themselves Progressives? This is why I call them "Regressives".
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Old Bathos@OldBathos34w
ReplyingtoShe
She (View Comment):
Yes. https://evebarlow.substack.com/p/predators. Please pay particular attention to the clips featuring United Nations darling Francesca Albanese. Essentially she is saying, “So what if there was mass rape on October 7 and beyond?” Some feminist and defender of the rights of women, she.
I am the proud daughter of British Colonialism. Was it perfect? Certainly not. Were some aspects of it horrible? Undoubtedly. But there is what I know of my early life, and there is this, from my father, written some forty years after his retirement from the British Colonial Service:
Even as I write this last chapter, a thirty-five year old mother of four has been put under sentence of death by stoning in Sokoto, because two years after she was divorced by her husband, she gave birth to a baby daughter.
Had she sought to remarry, she would have been allowed to do so after four months, having undergone the obligatory iddah, or waiting through several menstrual cycles in order to make certain she was not carrying her former husband’s child.
Since, however, she did not seek remarriage, the Islamic Court that tried her held her to be guilty of adultery (as opposed to mere fornication) by having had intercourse with a man other than the husband who had divorced her. The man in the case was discharged because there were not four witnesses to his act of intercourse.
In the case of the woman, however, the baby was evidence enough!
Unless, therefore, she can convince the Shariya Appeal Court that the child she bore was the result of a “deferred pregnancy” i.e. had been carried in her womb since before her divorce and was, in fact, the result of intercourse with her former husband while they were still married, (or unless the judgement itself can otherwise be overturned), then she might well be stoned–buried naked in the sand, with her hands bound together in her lap, in a sitting position, and then be pelted with stones until she is dead.
How could Northern Nigeria, once the Jewel in the Crown of the African Empire, have come to such a pass? When Sir Abubakar the Sultan, or Yahaya, Emir of Gwandu or Sir Usman Nagogo of Katsina, or indeed any other of the fifteen First Class Chiefs (all of whom, except for the Waziri of Sokoto) presided over their own Courts, with powers of life and death) were parties to the administration of justice, such a gross, medieval, travesty of it could never have been contemplated.
Nor would the Sardauna have countenanced it. either. He had, after all, personally initiated the Declaration on Religious Toleration and had steered the reform of the Northern legal system to stand for all time as an integral part of Nigeria’s Constitutional Arrangements after Lancaster House. In the implementation of both of these, I was either the initial draftsman or else had played a not inconsiderable part in achieving their resolution.
I am not ashamed that my country, and my heritage, attempted to put a stop to such barbarity.
My favorite British colonial rule story is the abolition of suttee in India (widow expected to throw herself or be thrown on her husband's funeral pyre). The Indians said how dare you interfere with our ancient traditions? The reponse was it that was an ancient British tradition to hang those who kill women, so we will compromise--you follow your traditions and then we will follow ours.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
MarciN@MarciN34w
This accurate historical account needs to be disseminated far and wide, for the protection of present and future generations of girls and women.
The world is in denial about the facts underlying Islam's inception and explosive growth.

Scroll for later comments

+34 more comments

Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 39 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.