Despite my own copious critiques, even I must concede that the American mainstream media really does print the bad news about Islamic gender apartheid—but it does so without drawing any “politically incorrect” conclusions, not even on their op-ed pages.
Over the years, the American mainstream media has printed articles about Islamic and African female genital mutilation, the public gang-rapes of innocent young girls in Pakistan (like Mukhtaran Bibi) and the repeated gang-rapes of girls and women in Darfur by ethnic Arab Muslims (the New York Times simply refused to use the word “Muslim”). The media has covered the disfiguring acid attacks on girls and women in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. Maddeningly, it draws no conclusion.
On November 3, 2004, an Iranian man, Majid Movahedi, poured a bucket of acid on Ameneh Bahrami’s head as she was leaving work. He did so because she had rejected his many marriage proposals. Poor Bahrami was blinded and disfigured. Since then, she has endured 17 operations, including one in Spain which failed to successfully reconstruct her face. She now has only 40% of her sight and only in one eye.
Under Shariah law, the victim has the right to demand an eye-for-an-eye if other negotiations fail. In this case, the great Islamic Republic of Iran was prepared to have a physician drop acid into Movahedi’s eyes—unless his victim forgave him.
On July 31st, 2011, at the last minute, in the hospital, she did so. Movahedi wept.
I dunno. His crime was vicious—but the legal system in Iran is just as vicious. Shariah law is medieval. It may once have worked for warring tribes in Arabia 1400 years ago. Islamic imperialism and conversion by the sword has now led to people in south and central Asia to chanting from the Arab-language Qur’an without understanding a single word of Arabic—and to adopt harsh Arab desert justice in places where Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism once reigned.
Maybe poor Ameneh should marry the fiend; maybe Majiid should atone for his crime by serving and supporting his victim for the rest of his life. But Ameneh didn’t want him before; how much more repulsive he must seem to her now.
On July 31, 2011, on the same day Ameneh forgave the man who blinded and disfigured her, the New York Times ran two pieces on their front page. One article continued its non-stop jihad against the anti-jihadic/anti-Shariah bloggers (whom it blames for the “Islamophobic” Norwegian massacre of mainly ethnic infidel Norwegians). The other article, right beneath it, is titled: “Afghans Rage at Young Lovers; A Father Says Kill Them Both.”
“Lovers”? Hardly. These two seventeen-year-olds have possibly—probably—exchanged glances and perhaps a love letter or two. Maybe they once held hands or even once dared to share a quick, almost chaste kiss. Yes, these two seventeen year old Major Muslim Sinners decided it was better to marry than to burn in Hell. On their way to their (perhaps secret) wedding, “A group of men spotted the couple riding together in a car, yanked them into the road and began to interrogate the boy and the girl. Why were they together? What right had they? An angry crowd of 300 surged around them, calling them adulterers and demanding that they be stoned or hanged.”
The police rescued them from the raging mob but in the process killed a man. The girl’s family now want her dead; the mob wants the boy dead too because he is a Tajik and she is a Hazara. The family of the dead man have also sworn to kill her—“unless she marries one of their other sons (in order to pay) her debt.”
Funny, you don’t look like a barbarian.
The reporter, Andrea Elliott, notes that another young Afghan couple who had also fallen in love “were stoned to death (in Kunduz) by scores of people—including family members—after they eloped. The stoning marked a brutal application of Shariah law, captured on a video.”
Thus, Elliott’s article, while painting a horrifying picture of raging, out-of-control rural Afghan lynch mobs, also praises the Afghan police in Herat for having rescued the young Romeo and Juliet as well as the local clerics for having refused to condemn them. This is surely a point in their favor, but what conclusion does Elliott draw? Does she honestly believe that the police will prevail against the girl’s family who have been shamed and are now out for her blood? Is there no expert she might have consulted on this point? Does Elliot really understand that such Shariah practices are coming our way, that in fact, they are already here?
Pages: 1 2