Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations

[Anudder Oik]

Here's the full interview with Klaudia Fior. (The dancer in Paris on NYE.)

She says at one stage of the interview she felt she was being punished for being her bubbly self. It's heart breaking.

'I was stripped and assaulted in Paris attack', 14/01/2016, Victoria Derbyshire - BBC Two

 

[bimble]

Breitbart are just taking it off of reddit, same as me.

Unfortunately I'm not shocked at all that a video denouncing one of the victims of Cologne as a liar and a far right propagandist 'went viral' and led to her receiving the wrath of the internet & death threats.

Or by people wanting to believe that story itself is a right wing propaganda lie .. making her a double liar.

 

[frogwoman]

The idiot should get a police caution for his actions.

a caution is that it ??

 

[Anudder Oik]

BBC map of NYE assaults

How widespread were New Year's Eve assaults? - BBC News

 

[frogwoman]

was there anything here?

 

[bimble]

was there anything here?

Surely not anything near the scale of Cologne but we just don't know do we.
If any woman in uk were sexually assaulted in public by a large group of unknown men I very much hope they would decide to report it and that we'd have heard about it by now.

 

[Thomsy]

But would you say that the perpetrators in Cologne and other cities were as well versed in Islamic law as you seem to be, and were practising "Dar el Islam" or just an out of control bunch of thugs thinking they could get away with rape and assault?

Hi Coley,

Firstly, I would say yes – the men in that square knew the essence of Islamic law regarding non-Muslims. It is almost inconceivable that they did not. I don’t mean they were all leaned jurisconsults. But they could not visit a mosque for the Friday sermon nor engage in any discussion regarding non-Muslims with their fellow Muslims without gaining a perfectly adequate understanding of the relationship between Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb as contained in Islamic doctrine. It is fundamental to Islam. And it’s really not hard to learn or understand. It simply asserts the supremacy – in religion, law, politics and society – of Muslims over non-Muslims. The rest is derivative detail. Every Muslim in the Muslim world knows the essence of it. And no non-Muslim can fail to learn it.

Truthfully, most people on this board have no grasp of the type of things which are preached in the Friday khutbahs. Or in the sermons of the popular sheikhs sold in their million on cassette tape. There is a relentless discourse in these popular media about the inferiority of non-Muslims and how this should be policed and enforced in daily life.

Equally, I think yes – they were a bunch of thugs who thought they could get away with rape and assault.

But, as I have said, I don’t think they were they simply “out of control”.

I believe their behaviour was significantly controlled – by their upbringing, by the way in which they had been taught to conceive non-Muslims and particularly non-Muslim women, by what they have been taught to believe is a legitimate, acceptable, even virtuous way to treat with non-Muslims. To that extent, I think Islamic doctrine is a primary factor in explaining what happened in Cologne, as it is in Raqqa and Rotheram.

 

[Thomsy]

all very good but all i wanted was for you to illustrate your argument with an example of something similar to what happened in cologne from islamick history. not much to ask, i'd have thought: but all you say is read this book or read that book. if you cannot point to a similar instance then perhaps you should reconsider your claim. i say again: women's clothing, their wallets and phones not much in the way of plunder.

I don’t understand why you’re focusing now on clothes and wallets. I’ve been talking primarily about the treatment of non-Muslim women. Were you not?

I’ve referenced controversial incidents in Islamic history to the book in which the accounts can be found because, as I said, I was concerned I would be banned if I actually quoted them. But the thread is pretty much dying now so, ok. I’ll search out an historical passage pertinent to the claim that Islamic doctrine legitimizes the taking of women as booty. I'll only post one for starters. If you really need more, you can ask. But truthfully, you can easily find them yourself.

 

[Thomsy]

Hi Mods:

The below is a quote from Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Mohammad, which is the earliest surviving biography of the Prophet/Apostle. It was written by a devout Muslim. It is a famous work. It is in the public domain. It is published most accessibly by the Folio Society.

Ibn Ishaq believed that Mohammed, the apostle of Allah, was the model and ideal man. Muslims look to Mohammed (his actions and words) as a source of law and a model of correct behaviour. I am quoting the passage in reply to another post. But, in any case, the words and deeds of Mohammed have immense significance in themselves – not least because it is those very words and deeds which IS and others in the radical Islamist movement are using as the basis for their theory and actions.

Delete the quote if you have to. But I’d rather not be banned!

 

[Thomsy]

‘In the seventh year of the Hijra the apostle rode out with sixteen hundred followers on an expedition against the Jewish tribe of Khaybar, about one hundred miles distant… The apostle occupied the Jewish forts one after the other, taking prisoners as he went. Among these were Safiya, the wife of Kinana, the Khaybar chief, and two female cousins; the aspostle chose Safiya for himself. The other prisoners were distributed among the Muslims… [Mohammed] ordered Safiya to remain and threw his reda [cloak] over her. So the Muslims knew he had reserved her for his own…

‘Kinana, the husband of Safiya, had been guardian of the tribe’s treasures, and he was brought before the apostle, who asked where they were hidden. But Kinana refused to disclose the place… The aspostle of Allah handed him over to al-Zubayr, saying, “Torture him until he tells what he knows”, and al-Zubayr kindled a fire on his chest...’ (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Mohammad, Folio Society, 1964, pp136ff)

After the torture, Mohammed had Kinana beheaded. I think Kinana was dead before Mohammed took sexual relations with Safiya, Kinana’s wife. But those relations would not anyway have been illicit even had her husband been spared. The Quran declares the following ruling.

‘Forbidden to you are… married women, except those whom you own as slaves.’ (Quran 4:24 – Penguin version, my bold.)

 

[Thomsy]

PS. The events at Khaybar are actually more important than the above would suggest. The manner of Mohammed’s treatment of the Jews at Khaybar – regarding their persons and property – is generally seen as one of the seminal moments in the definition of Islamic law on the treatment of non-Muslims.

Do average, normal, modern Muslims know anything about arcane historical matters such as this?

When I was last working in Egypt, one of my briefs was to report (in so far as the authorities permitted me) the communal attacks on the minority Coptic Christians and their churches. During those attacks, and at other anti-Christian demonstrations, you hear the famous chant over and over again:

“Khaybar! Khaybar! Ya Yehud!
Jaysh Mohammed sawfa ya’ud!”

Which translates:

“Khaybar! Khaybar! You Jews!
The army of Mohammed is coming again!”

 

[Diamond]

Charming

 

[bimble]

Interesting stuff Thomsy but I really hope you're wrong about Islam versus unbelievers is key to what happened in Cologne and elsewhere this NYE.
Nobody was shouting 'Jaysh Mohammed sawfa ya’ud!' were they?

It's helpful to know that one of your jobs in Egypt was to study and report on communal attacks on non-muslims.
That must surely influence your perception of recent events somewhat right? I mean it might help explain why you see these attacks mainly in religious war type terms whilst I see them mainly as attacks on women ?

 

[hot air baboon]

....the relationship between Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb as contained in Islamic doctrine. It is fundamental to Islam.

.....so how do you define "radical" Islam...do you even recognise the concept or is it Western liberals just whistling past the graveyard....Livingstone describing Al Qaradawi as "progressive" etc...

the way people "live" the Qu'ran I would presume resides largely with the Imams....who act as a mediating force between the word of god and the man on the street so the issue then becomes
1) how unreconstructed are their attitudes
2 ) how much influence do they have in transmitting those attitudes....one assumes its high

....if so a strategy becomes clear and I've seen references to Germany trying to crack down on the importation of Imam's from Turkey who are basically parachuted into the madrassas - unable to even speak German - to ensure the transmission of values from the home country is untarnished by western influences....

Educating Imams for Germany

In 2008, Turkey’s prime minister, visiting Germany at the time, unleashed a tempest when he called assimilation “a crime against humanity,” in what was understood as a call to resist integration.

 

[Thomsy]

.....so how do you define "radical" Islam...do you even recognise the concept or is it Western liberals just whistling past the graveyard....Livingstone describing Al Qaradawi as "progressive" etc...

the way people "live" the Qu'ran I would presume resides largely with the Imams....who act as a mediating force between the word of god and the man on the street so the issue then becomes
1) how unreconstructed are their attitudes
2 ) how much influence do they have in transmitting those attitudes....one assumes its high

....if so a strategy becomes clear and I've seen references to Germany trying to crack down on the importation of Imam's from Turkey who are basically parachuted into the madrassas - unable to even speak German - to ensure the transmission of values from the home country is untarnished by western influences....

Educating Imams for Germany

In 2008, Turkey’s prime minister, visiting Germany at the time, unleashed a tempest when he called assimilation “a crime against humanity,” in what was understood as a call to resist integration.

Hi HABaboon!

Funny, I was thumbing through Al Qaradawi just yesterday. Have your read The Lawful and the Prohibited yourself? The thing about it that depresses me is that it’s just so impoverished of human spirit.

What term do you use? I occasionally write “radicals” just because it is entirely ambiguous in its connotations (ie “going to the root”, or “going to an extreme”) – can be a term or approbation or of abuse, and therefore is acceptable to almost anyone. Used to be “fundamentalist”, of course. But that fell out of favour about 25 years ago just when I was just starting out. (I’m starting to sound like an old codger! Are you remotely old enough to remember?) The authorities and the lib-left tried to abolish the F-word because it suggested the uncomfortable impression that there was something ‘fundamentally’ militant in the ‘fundamentals’ of Islam. I generally use “Islamists”, myself. It connotes for me the holistic and supremacist ambition. But I actually think of them (of their method of exegesis, at least) pretty much as ‘literalist’. (Cue Lit-Crit grads going into seizure at the suggestion of such a hermeneutic!)

Trouble with message boards, I discover, is that you have to be brief – and consequently one-sided. You try to speak about Islamic doctrine… and you end up sounding like the proponent of German historical-idealism. But I do think Islam is a special case. The inescapability of the texts, coupled with the positive-legal specificity of the texts, is a combination the like of which we in the West have never experienced nor yet grasped. It just doesn’t compare with Medieval Christianity. Christianity was vulnerable (or, can we say, “open”) to humanist critique and reform. Islam is almost entirely insulated from either criticism or reform. The texts themselves invalidate critique of the texts. They enjoin violence against the critic. It is such a vicious circle. Such an impregnable form.

I understand entirely what you are saying about the imams. But can you imagine any liberal-democratic government attempting to impose a cadre of neutred imams? Or of them being accepted? Did you note the hostility expressed last week to the UK government’s incredibly weak proposals for the registration and blue-moon visitation of madrassas? Islam is now firmly established as an essence in Western Europe. It will seek to build a parallel state within the state. The militants or literalists will police the liberals.

I think Erdrogan is articulating the obvious.

PS. Can you let me know: is this reply annoyingly long!?!?!?

ETA. I forgot: "militant" - my favourite for vagueness.

 

[Thomsy]

Interesting stuff Thomsy but I really hope you're wrong about Islam versus unbelievers is key to what happened in Cologne and elsewhere this NYE.
Nobody was shouting 'Jaysh Mohammed sawfa ya’ud!' were they?

Hello Bimble, you still here? (Thank you for the like!)

I was a journalist. I reported on everything. I only mentioned the Khaybar slogan to demonstrate that Muslims have an understanding of the historical foundations of their law.

You suggest that I am interpreting things from a religious angle. I understand what you mean. But I would reply that Islam is not actually a religion in the sense that we use the term. Rather it is, and Muslims insist it is, also a revealed system of government and law. It is a total and all-encompassing way of life.

Consequently, Islam does not accept the existence of women’s rights. Women have no rights in themselves – not in the way that we conceive them from the perspective of our Christian tradition. Women are accorded rights by Allah. Women cannot decide or elect which rights they wish to have. Allah, through Islam, has announced what rights women have. Women can only receive those rights. There is debate as to precisely which rights Allah has accorded women (ie the meaning of the legal phrases written, or the possible analogic extension of that meaning), but that debate has to take place ‘within’ the doctrinal framework of Islam, not autonomously.

It is for this same reason that Islamic doctrine denies the existence of what we term ‘human rights’.

There is nothing anterior to Islam. No critical position outside Islam.

(PS. I fly off tomorrow and probably won't have chance to reply again. So cheerio!)

 

[frogwoman]

Judaism is similar though (very legalistic with rules which govern all aspects of life and threats of dire punishment if you disobey). Yet there are all sorts of alternate schools of thought within Judaism which has meant that the cross-spitters have become a tiny minority. Is islam really so different?

 

[Pickman's model]

I don’t understand why you’re focusing now on clothes and wallets. I’ve been talking primarily about the treatment of non-Muslim women. Were you not?

I’ve referenced controversial incidents in Islamic history to the book in which the accounts can be found because, as I said, I was concerned I would be banned if I actually quoted them. But the thread is pretty much dying now so, ok. I’ll search out an historical passage pertinent to the claim that Islamic doctrine legitimizes the taking of women as booty. I'll only post one for starters. If you really need more, you can ask. But truthfully, you can easily find them yourself.

you started pissing on about plunder. how many women were taken as booty? er 0. all the booty can therefore consist of is their clothes etc. now fuck off you dull cunt.

 

[Diamond]

From my understanding of modern Islam, I don't find anything that Thomsy has put forward on this thread remotely surprising. In fact, I think it's pretty much on the money. Although I would not pretend to be an expert, it is entirely in line with stuff that I have studied at university and subsequently and friends who know much more than me who I have spoken to about things like this.

However, that does not necessarily mean that the NYE attacks were a reflection of a religious sensibility alone or even principally. That may have been, indirectly, part of the multifarious influences that came into play but my impression is that there were many other, perhaps more concerning, aspects at play - fundamental respect for women's rights, attitudes to the sexualisation of western women in particular, the rapid development of a rape culture amongst young men, and all within a fairly specific group of immigrants from a small range of related ethnicities and backgrounds; perhaps more than anything else reflecting the cultures that they have grown up in, and here is where you can loop in Islamic essentialism if you like and you probably would not be 100% wrong, but it is only part of a much bigger picture from my point of view.

Nonetheless, leaving the details of causality and motivation aside, it's pretty clear that this is a real issue that must be addressed and the apologists who point to Western foreign policy or who attempt to explain that integration on Western cultural terms either (i) will happen because these are fundamentally good blokes who have merely had a rough time of things recently or (ii) that integration is not really necessary at all and everything will quieten down in a stable multicultural peace are deluded.

 

[goldenecitrone]

you started pissing on about plunder. how many women were taken as booty? er 0. all the booty can therefore consist of is their clothes etc. now fuck off you dull cunt.

A typically dignified response to having your arse handed to you on a plate, Pickers old chap. And by a noob to boot.

 

[coley]

Hello Bimble, you still here? (Thank you for the like!)

I was a journalist. I reported on everything. I only mentioned the Khaybar slogan to demonstrate that Muslims have an understanding of the historical foundations of their law.

You suggest that I am interpreting things from a religious angle. I understand what you mean. But I would reply that Islam is not actually a religion in the sense that we use the term. Rather it is, and Muslims insist it is, also a revealed system of government and law. It is a total and all-encompassing way of life.

Consequently, Islam does not accept the existence of women’s rights. Women have no rights in themselves – not in the way that we conceive them from the perspective of our Christian tradition. Women are accorded rights by Allah. Women cannot decide or elect which rights they wish to have. Allah, through Islam, has announced what rights women have. Women can only receive those rights. There is debate as to precisely which rights Allah has accorded women (ie the meaning of the legal phrases written, or the possible analogic extension of that meaning), but that debate has to take place ‘within’ the doctrinal framework of Islam, not autonomously.

It is for this same reason that Islamic doctrine denies the existence of what we term ‘human rights’.

There is nothing anterior to Islam. No critical position outside Islam.

(PS. I fly off tomorrow and probably won't have chance to reply again. So cheerio!)

Don't leave it another 5 years

 

[coley]

you started pissing on about plunder. how many women were taken as booty? er 0. all the booty can therefore consist of is their clothes etc. now fuck off you dull cunt.

Interesting, informative, possibly controversial, even reasoned, but certainly not a " dull cunt"

 

[alfajobrob]

Jesus fucking christ....80+ pages. Fuck Jeez, Fuck Mo, Fuck Bhudda...lol

Whose raping at the moment?

 

[Casually Red]

it's not confined to them though, is it? Even idiots over here have suggested it might be a right-wing false flag attack which is basically the same thing as saying these women are just Nazi whores not victims of rape.

That bullshit has been a running theme throughout this thread from the very beginning . A real eye opener for sure .

 

[Casually Red]

Here's the full interview with Klaudia Fior. (The dancer in Paris on NYE.)

She says at one stage of the interview she felt she was being punished for being her bubbly self. It's heart breaking.

'I was stripped and assaulted in Paris attack', 14/01/2016, Victoria Derbyshire - BBC Two

I cant even listen to that . Had to turn off half way through. Too upsetting at the moment .

And this bullshit about not going out alone. These are massive gangs . There's very little even half a dozen male companions could do if they're properly determined to do this .

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There was a lot of speculation the MB were encouraging the tahrir square atrocities to drive women off the square. But just that, speculation . No definitive proof . They didn't seem overly annoyed by it though .
At a push , a real push, I could see some of those migrants trying to justify their actions after the fact, among themselves , by pointing to the ramblings of some bigoted sheikh . Indulging in some chauvinistic Islamic gloating and boasting, in order to glorify it as a sectarian or ethnic victory over the krauts. To try and give their sordid gangs activities an added aura or something . As flannel, boastful shite talk . And nothing more .
But as far as I can see the primary overriding motivation was criminal, anti social and hooligan in nature . A networked shower of criminal bastards who realised they had the advantages of numbers, total surprise , lack of security and possibly...for the more astute and cynical among them.. even an insight into the weakness of the liberal establishment and lefty mindset . Who'd balk at robustly challenging so many of them out of the intense , overriding fear of it being seen as racist . Which seems to have happened right across the board . And is still happening .
But these guys were pissed up . I'd say Islam was the last thing on their minds when they went about this .

I see you've come around to pretty much the same interpretation as I was proposing earlier. 'Hooliganism' by 'a networked shower of criminal bastards' is a pretty fair description IMO for what the available evidence suggests.

One point of difference though, where I think you're stretching a fairly weak point. I don't think that e.g. a bunch of cops could seriously be described as having an "intense, over-riding fear of being seen as racist" by anyone familiar with cops. There may be a few people who have such a fear, but I seriously doubt that many of them are coppers.

They may *talk* that way in the same way as a kipper prefaces a racist comment with 'I know you'll call me a racist for saying this but ... <says some racist shit>'.

 

[Pickman's model]

A typically dignified response to having your arse handed to you on a plate, Pickers old chap. And by a noob to boot.

arse handed to me in a plate by a noob? come back when you've actually read the thread you stupid fucking cunt.

 

[bimble]

From my understanding of modern Islam, I don't find anything that Thomsy has put forward on this thread remotely surprising. In fact, I think it's pretty much on the money. Although I would not pretend to be an expert, it is entirely in line with stuff that I have studied at university and subsequently and friends who know much more than me who I have spoken to about things like this.

However, that does not necessarily mean that the NYE attacks were a reflection of a religious sensibility alone or even principally. That may have been, indirectly, part of the multifarious influences that came into play but my impression is that there were many other, perhaps more concerning, aspects at play - fundamental respect for women's rights, attitudes to the sexualisation of western women in particular, the rapid development of a rape culture amongst young men, and all within a fairly specific group of immigrants from a small range of related ethnicities and backgrounds; perhaps more than anything else reflecting the cultures that they have grown up in, and here is where you can loop in Islamic essentialism if you like and you probably would not be 100% wrong, but it is only part of a much bigger picture from my point of view.

Nonetheless, leaving the details of causality and motivation aside, it's pretty clear that this is a real issue that must be addressed and the apologists who point to Western foreign policy or who attempt to explain that integration on Western cultural terms either (i) will happen because these are fundamentally good blokes who have merely had a rough time of things recently or (ii) that integration is not really necessary at all and everything will quieten down in a stable multicultural peace are deluded.

Totally agree with Diamond's post, apart from the bit about 'the rapid development of a rape culture amongst young men', don't know how new that is.
I'd suggest that porn, and music videos even, being available on mobile phones around the world, beamed into the lives of people living in societies where women's sexuality and the whole idea of sex outside of marriage is a complete taboo etc, is a more relevant factor here than anything to do with religious texts.

 

[DownwardDog]

Whose raping at the moment?

Pickmans got rekt by Thomsy but it was consensual.

 

[bimble]

I don't think that e.g. a bunch of cops could seriously be described as having an "intense, over-riding fear of being seen as racist" by anyone familiar with cops. There may be a few people who have such a fear, but I seriously doubt that many of them are coppers.

They may *talk* that way in the same way as a kipper prefaces a racist comment with 'I know you'll call me a racist for saying this but ... <says some racist shit>'.

I think CR was referring to the (alleged) coverup / suppression of the reports of the attacks by the police and then the media in Germany (and separately in Sweden) for fear of provoking civil unrest / anti-immigrant feeling etc.