Beware the ratbags

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am

Reader ilibcc forwards this extract (not available online) from a book review by Claire Sutherland in Saturday’s Melbourne Herald Sun:

… an exemplary case for us all to open our eyes, our minds and our hearts while closing our ears to the rantings of anti-Islamic ratbags—one of whom can do more damage, surely, than a platoon of suicide bombers.

Tell that to the families of those killed by suicide bombers. Sutherland’s review (of Christine Hogan’s The Veiled Lands) continues:

Consider, in relation to the widely-held belief that the Koran places women in a position of some disadvantage, that the first convert to Islam, Khadja, was a woman—the wife of Mohammed.

As ilibcc writes: “Do editors exist any more?”

Posted by Tim B. on 09/04/2006 at 08:13 PM
    1. So conversion to a cult is a clear sign of equal status? There was no coercion on Mrs Mo to join hubby in his batty beliefs?

      Maybe there wasn’t any threat or pressure involved of course, maybe she was a simple-minded jellyfish, or some horrific hatful who hid behind the hijab with some relief, to avoid the mocking stares and tittering of the cheeky street lepers.

      Islam is to feminism as a D9 is to Rachael Corrie.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 09 04 at 08:26 PM • permalink


    1. More damage than a platoon of suicide bombers?  Yes.  It’s true.  You see, ranting makes these people very annoyed, and soon a platoon can turn into a company, a battalion, a division… So please no more ranting.

      Posted by Big Jim on 2006 09 04 at 08:27 PM • permalink


    1. So the 6 year old was converted by her husband to the belief that her husband was the appointed one of Allah. To the Leftoid mind that constitutes “scientific proof” that females are not disadvantaged by Islam. As Groucho Marx said, “Are you going to believe me or what you can see in front of your two eyes?” The observation by Mark Steyn can be applied with vigor to Claire Sutherland. She has converted to Islam and there is no possibility that she will reconvert to journalism (or to sanity).

      Posted by stats on 2006 09 04 at 08:34 PM • permalink


    1. Those Mythbusters guys are gonna be run off their feet with some of this stuff…

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 04 at 08:35 PM • permalink


    1. And so, except for a few geographically isolated islands of reaction, Western Civilization succumbed to militant Islam after an off and on 1400 year war, not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but with a moan of submissive pleasure from beneath a burkha…

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 09 04 at 08:45 PM • permalink


    1. I’m tired of being told that Islamic women are perfectly happy to be bundled up like a mummy “to protect their modesty”.  These women have been brainwashed since birth that they should erase themselves from view.  Sure, they’re satisfied with that.  Why not, when they’ve never, ever known anything else?  But, for the love of God, don’t tell me that they ever had a real choice in the matter.

      And the fact that this idiot Sutherland thinks the “rantings” of “anti-Islamic ratbags” does more damage that a whole platoon of suicide bombers reveals her as a moron without a capacity for anything approaching perspective.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 09 04 at 08:45 PM • permalink


    1. one of whom can do more damage, surely, than a platoon of suicide bombers.

      As the feral moonbats are likened to do, they insert one of the following words before saying something ludicrous: “surely”, “obviously”, “undoubtedly”, “unquestionably”, “clearly”, “undisputedly”.

      It acts as a clear marker for forthcoming bullshit in the same sentence.

      Perhaps this is a start of a new game called Moonbat Bingo.

      Posted by manbag’s bagman on 2006 09 04 at 08:47 PM • permalink


    1. Survey Taken

      The BBC’s Asian Network has taken a poll. One in ten of 500 Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Muslims surveyed back honour killings. This is very informative as it stands but a little more in the way of a further breakdown would also have been instructive.

      I have liaised with Australian MSM Middle East reporters who have a far greater knowledge than I in this area. We have assumed that each group consists of 125 people and our consensus for the breakdown is as follows (with the fraction representing the number favouring honour killings) –

      Hindus 15/125 (12%)
      Sikhs 9/125 (7%)
      Christians 25/125 (20%)
      Muslims 1/125 (< 1%)

      Giving the overall sample figures of 50/500 (10%). I hope this makes things clearer. I can understand the sensitivities of Christians and Hindus especially when they see themselves placed above the mean, but we must put the truth above any such considerations.

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 09 04 at 08:54 PM • permalink


    1. The burkha simply turns Muslim women into the human equivalents of battery chickens. Placed in their environment from birth, neither know any better and assume that everything is normal.

      Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 09 04 at 09:07 PM • permalink


    1. The quoted article reminds me of prisoners telling each other: “Shh! Don’t let the guards hear you! You’ll just make them mad!” We can’t criticize Islam; we might make them mad…

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 04 at 09:15 PM • permalink


    1. Indonesia voted a 2 year stint on the UN Security Council…

      When will this travesty of an organisation be disbanded?

      At the very least, kick them the hell out of the Home of the Brave biggest apple—let ‘em meet in Khartoum for a while.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 04 at 09:26 PM • permalink


    1. Sorry for the OT, but I just heard about Indonesia, and I am livid. Seems S. Korea traded their turn for a vote in favour of securing a S. Korean as the next SecGen.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 04 at 09:31 PM • permalink


    1. This is a stupid effing feminist. I suggest she go stroll around Saudi Arabia for a few hours, until she is beaten to a pulp by the guys with religious sticks.

      Effing idiot moroness.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 09 04 at 10:04 PM • permalink


    1. If Claire Sutherland has ever had a bonk on the side, I wonder how she would feel about being stoned to death for it.

      The hypocrisy of these lefty ratbags fair sucks the oxygen out of the room, it really does.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2006 09 04 at 10:17 PM • permalink


    1. stats: Khadija isn’t the wife that was reportedly a child when Mohammed married her—that was Aisha (or Ayesha—the spelling differs). Khadija was reportedly much older than Mohammed when they got married—the Wikipedia article linked above states she was forty and he twenty-five.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 04 at 10:25 PM • permalink


    1. Just a few of the many Islamic practices that promote the freedom and happiness of women:

      1. Wife chastisement Sura 4:34 “If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.”

      2. Veiling The Prophet said: “once a woman reaches the age of puberty no part of her body should be uncovered except her face and hands.”

      3. Temporary marriage Shi’ites call it mut’a, Sunnis call it misyar. “Can Someone Contract Mut’a Marriage for 1 hour? …Much in the same way that it is possible for some one to marry a woman permanently and then divorce her in one hour or even less.”

      4. Not being allowed to travel or leave the house without permission
      “For a woman with whom permanent marriage is contracted, it is haraam to go out of the house without the permission of her husband”

      5. Child custody defaults to fathers
      “Under Shari’a, a father is the natural guardian (al waley) of his children’s persons and property.”

      And many more…

      Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 09 04 at 10:37 PM • permalink


    1. Sorry can’t help but correct a few mistakes in the above comments.

      The Prophets first wife was Khadija she never veiled. I belive she was 15 years older than him.. That directive came in later after she died. Secondly the 9 year old you are referring to too is Ayesha. The daughter of a close friend (please excuse the misspelling of the names).

      Irrespective of names though, Islam definitely does not give women equal rights where inheritance and a woman’s word in a court of law is concerned. Also there is the much quoted Sura 4:34 where a man may inflict corporal punishment on a woman if she is disobedient, (or rebellious or perverse which ever way you want to translate it).

      Quite frankly I take offence at most religions in regards to the status they have assigned women and am very happy I take no notice of what is written in any books from over a thousand years ago.

      In regards to the veil or hijab! Many of those women wearing hijab are university educated and do no consider it oppression. The problem is not women wearing it. Indeed this is a democracy and woman can wear what they want within reason. I do not suggest wearing your birthday suit down George Street.

      The problem lies with religions/men projecting their moral values or lack of them on to women and demanding we restrict out selves to accommodate them because they are so helpless and can’t control them-selves.

      For example some of those wonderful Muslim spokesmen to rant that we are asking to be raped because we do not veil.

      Yes I have read the Quran and yes it is something I am trying to forget.

      Posted by JackyM on 2006 09 04 at 10:59 PM • permalink


    1. #16

      Now now “Bonjuour Triteness”. You don’t want to be perceived as an “anti-Islamic ratbag”. I mean, that would surely make you more dangerous than a platoon of suicide bombers! At least, that’s what the article said…

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 04 at 10:59 PM • permalink


    1. #18, actually I think I’d like to be considered more dangerous than a platoon of suicide bombers.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 09 04 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. A little math peoples.
      If one anti-Islamic ratbag = a platoon of suicide bombers, how many suicide bombers would you get for 1,250,000 anti-Islamic ratbags?
      Write you answer here ………………
      (Question: time allowed 10 mins, Value: 20 points)

      Posted by Bonmot on 2006 09 04 at 11:50 PM • permalink


    1. Of course Muslim women don’t mind being veiled.  The ones who complained are dead.  Those who are left will make sure that their daughters conform.  It’s just one more instance of Darwin at work.  Any woman with enough gumption to rebel won’t make it in that culture (and cultures like it).

      What a stupid woman.  This is what comes of thinking of people in terms of cultural or racial groups rather than as individuals.  That is the only thing that allows her to be so cavalier about other women’s lives.  If that doesn’t define the evil of such ideas, I don’t know what would.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 04 at 11:56 PM • permalink


    1. Presumably then, Sutherland would prefer to share a trans-Atlantic flight with a platoon of suicide bombers than with one ranting anti-Islamic ratbag.

      Posted by Conrad on 2006 09 05 at 01:25 AM • permalink


    1. But..but..what about the radiation, that comes from a womans hair and drives men crazy?. It’s taught at certain universities, it must be true. Perhaps a special shampoo could be devised…

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 09 05 at 01:27 AM • permalink


    1. Ha, like big Mo says “you can knock the feminist out of the bimbo, but ya can’t knock the bimbo out of the feminist”.

      Posted by larrikin on 2006 09 05 at 01:34 AM • permalink


    1. How can she equate “anti-Islamic ratbags” with a “platoon of suicide bombers”? The mind wonders? How does someone reason with an idiot? Its incomprehensible how a Western trained journalist can come up with such utter clap trap. I really wish I could wave a magic wand and transport her and her ilk to Iran, Pakistan etc.. in return for women who want to be free from Islamic oppression.

      Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 09 05 at 02:03 AM • permalink


    1. Bonmot:
      Taking a conservative value of 20 as a platoon and using 7/7 as the expected damgage from a suicide bobmer I calculate that we need 5000 “anti-Islamic ratbags”.

      50/4 = 12.5 casualties p/bomber
      12.5 * 20 = 250 casualties p/platoon
      1.25m/250 = 5000 ratbags required

      Can she provide evidence of just one ‘ratbag’ who has achieved this level of damage?

      Posted by Dale on 2006 09 05 at 03:13 AM • permalink


    1. A platoon is 39 guys.  42 if you’re a Marine. (2 4-man teams per squad + 1 squad leader x four squads + 1 platoon sergeant + 1 platoon commander + 1 medic)


      3 4-man teams + 1 squad leader x 3 sqauds + the above listed attachments.

      Today’s useless factoid is brought to you by Coors Light.  It’s like urine, with alcohol!

      Posted by Secundus on 2006 09 05 at 06:01 AM • permalink


    1. #7 Claire Sutherland unquestionably understands the plight of muslim women better than the rest of us and, obviously, her tireless research into this has led her to come to these well thought out conclusions.

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 05 at 06:42 AM • permalink


    1. Compulsorily veiling your women is an admission that all your men are inherently and irreversibly untrustworthy. It is an admission of failure.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 09 05 at 08:02 AM • permalink


    1. Consider, in relation to the widely-held belief that the Koran places women in a position of some disadvantage, that the first convert to Islam, Khadja, was a woman—the wife of Mohammed.

      Consider, after reading this monumentally stupid paragraph, a few other things:

      1) The Islam of 2006 (a globalised religion with delusions of world domination) is not the Islam of 6th Century BC (a tiny insignificant sect). Most historians agree that not only had most Islamic traditions not been formulated at this point, most likely the Qu’ran hadn’t even been written.

      2) For God’s sake, at the stage of this conversion there was a grand total of 2 (2!) people in the whole religion. Mohammed and his wife. Bit hard to oppress people by yourself.

      M: “Oy! Wifey! Cover up that hair!”

      K: “Go screw yourself, towelhead.”

      M: “Shit. I deserved that.”

      Posted by Quentin George on 2006 09 05 at 08:43 AM • permalink


    1. Rather than force women to cover their bodies why don’t muslim men with “wandering eye” problems simply wear horse blinkers?

      Posted by Rob Read on 2006 09 05 at 10:56 AM • permalink


    1. Khadija isn’t the wife that was reportedly a child when Mohammed married her—that was Aisha (or Ayesha—the spelling differs). Khadija was reportedly much older than Mohammed when they got married—the Wikipedia article linked above states she was forty and he twenty-five.

      I’ll probably get fatwa’ed for saying that, but now I have this image of Mohammed as history’s first MILF Hunter…

      Posted by PW on 2006 09 05 at 11:23 AM • permalink


    1. Better an anti-Islamic ratbag than an English satin bag .

      Posted by paco on 2006 09 05 at 12:53 PM • permalink


    1. #7 We’d have to use an extra-large game card to keep the squares from filling up too quickly.

      #8 What is the basis for this consensus that the greatest support for honor killings is found among Christians?  Must be those Presbyterians again.  Would it not be reasonable to assume that support is greatest among the people actually doing the killing?

      And on a stylistic note, let’s have no more bureau-babble like “liaised”.  “Connect” is a perfectly good English word that means what the other word was invented to mean.  Away with it, or we’ll send you off to proactively optimize your synergies.

      Posted by JDFlanagan on 2006 09 05 at 01:48 PM • permalink


    1. This is just the sort of crap they said about people living behind the Iron Curtain, ie: perhaps not for most of us, but they are happy.

      Utter, utter BS. Hell, I married a girl from behind the Iron Curtain. The whole family defected, giving everything up in the process. I guess they were just too happy.

      Posted by Dminor on 2006 09 06 at 02:59 AM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.