The Rape and Slavery that no Campus will condemn, a post by Daniel Greenfield, with comments from everyman. Of course Muslims wouldn’t like it if they were on the receiving end of slavery. That doesn’t stop them condemning the practice as their whole morality is not based on inherent wickedness or evil but on who is doing what to whom

Slavery and rape aren’t wrong when Muslims do it.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody.”

“A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her.”

These views don’t come from an ISIS underground bunker, but out of the brilliantly lit halls of Georgetown University where rape and slavery are defended by an Islamic studies professor.

Georgetown had changed the names of Mulledy Hall and McSherry Hall because Mulledy and McSherry had once been involved in selling some slaves back in the early 19th century. When Christina Hoff Sommers spoke at Georgetown, feminists demanded trigger warnings and a university official threatened College Republicans. But defending actual slavery and rape is still okay at Georgetown.

So long as it’s committed by Muslims under the license of the Koran.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody,” Jonathan Brown explained to attendees at his lecture. “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.”

The Georgetown Islamic Studies professor had expelled a critic before the lecture even began. He thought that he was among “brothers” at the International Institute of Islamic Thought. But sitting in the audience was Umar Lee, another convert, but one who unlike Brown had struggled with the morality of his new religion. Some in the audience had questions and Brown had horrifying Islamist answers.

To a man who argued that slavery was wrong, Brown retorted, “How can you say, if you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”

Slavery can’t be wrong. Not if Mohammed, the prophet of Allah and founder of Islam, had slaves. The Koran is the touchstone of Brown’s personal morality, as it is of every Muslim.

Mohammed was the perfect man and a role model for all Muslims. Therefore rape and child abuse can’t be wrong either. Not when the founder of Islam was both a rapist and a pedophile.

When Brown had been asked in the past about the women and girls sold and raped by ISIS based on Islamic law, he defended the Islamic practice of sex slavery, “There is no doubt that the Quran and Sunna permit this.”

So too when defending Mohammed’s sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl, Brown insisted, “You cannot say from a Sharia perspective that what the prophet did was wrong because the prophet can’t commit sins.”

How can Mohammed’s slavery and rape be whitewashed? All you have to do is deny the existence of freedom and the right of human beings not to be enslaved and raped.

“It’s very hard to have this discussion because we think of, let’s say in the modern United States, the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent,” Brown lectured wearily.

“If you take away the consent element, then everyone starts flipping out. Right? At that but you get, rape you get sexual acts done by people who are too young we perceive to consent. And these are sort of the great moral wrongs of our society.”

We focus on consent, Brown explained, because we “fetishize the idea of autonomy”, but “most of human history human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity”.

Islam certainly does not. In Islamic morality, consent has as much to do with moral sexual activity as ice cream cones have to do with airplanes. Islam does not offer universal rights, but hierarchies of privilege in return for allegiance to Muslim leaders. It eliminates individual autonomy: whether it’s that of non-Muslim women being raped by Muslim conquerors or non-Muslim slaves reduced to property.

“A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her… her ‘consent’ would be meaningless since she is his slave,” Brown had also explained in the past.

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them,” he appears to have written on Facebook.

America is based on equality of rights. Islam is a supremacist system based on inequality.

“We fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people?” Brown wonders.

This deconstruction of a crime against a woman into philosophizing about the nature of free will isn’t just academic wordplay; it’s the essence of Islam. Islam denies that human beings can be free. Muslims are slaves of Allah. They serve the Caliph. In return, they may force everyone else to serve them.

Is anyone really free? We’re all slaves.

That is the essential idea of Islam. It’s the radical notion of every totalitarian revolutionary movement. If everyone is already enslaved, then enslaving them under the correct way of thinking is really liberation.

No one is free. Therefore those who are more free, because they worship Allah or recognize the evils of capitalism, are doing them a favor by enslaving them.

And the rest is word games.

Jonathan Brown is a Georgetown boy. He got his degree there and these days he holds the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization and directs the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. The $20 million gift from the Saudi prince brought real rape culture to Georgetown.

Don’t look for Georgetown’s Working Group on Slavery or President DeGioia, who decided to rename two buildings because their namesakes had once sold slaves, to get involved. The Saudis still practice their own form of slavery. They only abolished slavery, on an official basis, under pressure from JFK.

In 1962.

These days, the Saudis actually fund people like Brown who defend slavery in the United States.

Brown is valued by his masters for his word games. He deconstructs slavery and rape until they become meaningless. No one is ever free. And as the holder of a chair funded by a slave kingdom, he ought to know.

After the scandal broke, Brown declared on Twitter, “Islam as a faith and I as a person condemn slavery, rape and concubinage.”

In the past, Brown had written, “As for concubinage, there is no doubt that the Quran and Sunna permit this.” At the lecture, he had declared, “If you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God?”

But it’s all in how you define slavery, rape or terrorism.

Behind all the words games is a fundamental clash of values and civilizations. American values and Islamic values are not compatible. Islam does not believe in consent, freedom and autonomy. It also doesn’t believe in truth. A dialogue with a totalitarian ideology is meaningless. It consists of deceitful word games used to justify its abuses. Those word games are all that Jonathan Brown has to offer.

It’s all that the left has to offer. That’s why it will protect and defend Brown and his horrifying views.

The modern campus and its obsession with punishing slavery and eradicating rape culture are a sham. Georgetown will lash out at a dead 19th century Jesuit priest, but it will never stand up to the Saudi royals or Jonathan Brown. It will investigate rape culture everywhere except in the speeches and writings of one of its professors who is merely quoting the horrifying body of Islamic jurisprudence.

ISIS atrocities shocked the world. But it’s a shorter distance from ISIS to the modern world than we like to think. You don’t need to travel to Iraq or Syria to listen to it being defended as a way of life.

Just stop by Georgetown instead.

 

Share

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Rape and Slavery that no Campus will condemn, a post by Daniel Greenfield, with comments from everyman. Of course Muslims wouldn’t like it if they were on the receiving end of slavery. That doesn’t stop them condemning the practice as their whole morality is not based on inherent wickedness or evil but on who is doing what to whom

  1. θ says:

    Since they are technically at war with the West in Syria and Iraq, the Khawarijites would like to hurt, harm, rape the women in the West, snatching, trafficking, and making them their sex slaves as a lucrative business.
    The Khawarijites do what they used to do, that is Takfiring and harming the ordinary Moslems from inside (including new converts, poor immigrants, and Moslems in the West) as much as they can. Khawarij movement acts as a paid “black ops” serving the Islamophobes’ propaganda and warmongering agenda. Those ordinary Moslems whom the Khawarijites victimised just experience what our early caliphs had suffered.

    Unlike in the Bible, in Qur’an slavery is not a norm, but a disgrace.
    Qur’an makes a parable or example equating the slavery and occupation with the unbelief and angelic curse, in Q.16, v.75 and Q.4, v.97. Moreover, Qur’an categorises imprisonment as penalty of disgrace as well per Q.5, v.33.
    Q.16, v.74 So do not present the rival parable for Allah, Indeed Allah knows and ye do not know.
    Q.16, v.75 Allah presents a parable: a slave owned and unable to do a thing, and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah, but most of them do not know.
    Q.4, v.97 Indeed, those whom the angels terminate, while wronging themselves, will say, In what were you? They will say, We were inferior ones in the land. The angels will say, Was not the earth of Allah spacious for you to emigrate therein? For those their refuge is Hell and evil it is as a destination.

    As Q.4, v.97 above, Allah uses the word Mustad’afin (people of lower caste) to depict the unjust culture, inferior, subhuman, dehumanised group, similar to the slavery of Jews under Egyptians.

    Slavery has been abolished since the farewell sermon of Prophet Muhammad. During the event a parable of hand’s fingers is given: Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any superiority to claim over another. You are as brothers. (Tabari, Hisham, Baihaqi).

  2. θ says:

    Similar to the Hollywood movies on the global organisation of terror, the Khawarij movement aims to be a single private consortium of global mayhem, staging terrors and crime on the places where the clients and higher bidders paid most. As a shadow organisation it would like to provide fake information thru propaganda machine as well. The group gets benefited by the price of maintaining the conflicts, the payments of post-war rebuilding, and dividends of running a business of humanitarian crisis such as immigration.

  3. θ says:

    The Khawarijites are not caliphate claimers, they are the killers of caliph.

    The separation of Moslems and Khawarijites has occurred since the early time of caliphate. The series of footage of ISIS’ testimony of praising the horrible crime is very much useful to prove how the Khawarijites evolve from the old way of takfiring and harming the ordinary Moslems first to a brand new way of terrorising the Non Moslems and everyone.

  4. θ says:

    “Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam”

    As adage says, do not rock the boat, shouldn’t a Jewish man have thanked ISIS and their supporters because Israel and Israeli women remain exempt from the victims and targets of ISIS after year of years of their terrors?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: