Trained "Islamic Scholars" propagating misinformation like this will keep the Maldives mired in hate and backwardness.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A boat-load of crap squeezed into a few minutes of video.
WARNING : Disturbing Holocaust Footage : Egyptian Cleric Justifies the Holocaust, Airs Footage, and Declares: "This Is What We Hope Will Happen But, Allah Willing, at the Hand of the Muslims" - Aired On Jan 26th
Trained "Islamic Scholars" propagating misinformation like this will keep the Maldives mired in hate and backwardness.
Trained "Islamic Scholars" propagating misinformation like this will keep the Maldives mired in hate and backwardness.
Friday, January 23, 2009
hamas suicide bombers club meeting - - 72 Fathafolhi
If you really want to believe that Islam is incompatible with terrorism, then it's probably best not to watch this. Maybe they may stop this thing about screaming "Allah Akbar" in crowded places and blowing themselves up immediately after that holy declaration if someone could convince them "it's a misinterpretation of the word, that it really is "raisins" not "virgins."
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
the Final Destination of Dhivehin - 72 Hooralleen
Muslims spill the beans on the Qur'an's 'sex for murder' clause that has been the source of so much misery in the world.
Do Muslim suicide bombers actually believe that they will get 72 virgins or is this just western propaganda to make them look stupid?
Related links:
Do Muslim suicide bombers actually believe that they will get 72 virgins or is this just western propaganda to make them look stupid?
Related links:
Republic? Democracy?..er..no..its actually a CULT
Saturday, January 17, 2009
މާލޭގައި ހުންނަ އިސްލާމުންގެ މައި ފައްޅި
މިއީ މާލޭ އިސްލާމުން އެ މީހުންގެ މައި ދެވި އައްލޯހު އަށް އަޅުކަންކުރާ އެންމެ ބޮޑު ފައްޅި އެވެ. ފައްޅީގެ ކުރިބޯއްޓެއްގެގޮތުގައި ޖަހާފައި އެ ވަނީ ހަނދުފަޅިއެކެވެ. ހަނދުފަޅިއަކީ ބަދަވި އަރަބީންގެ މައި ދެވި އައްލޯހުގެ ބުދުގެ މޭމަތީގައި ޖަހާފައި ހުންނަ، އެ ދެވީގެ ހާއްސަ ފާހަގައެވެ
ފައްޅީގެ ކުރިމަތީގައި ދިދަދަނޑިއަކަށް ނަގާފައި ހުންނަ ވަހުތާނެއް ހުރެއެވެ. މި ވަހުތާނުގައިވެސް ހުންނަނީ އައްލޯހު ދެވީގެ ހަނދުފަޅި ފާހަގަ ޖަހާފައެވެ
ފައްޅީގެ ކުރިމަތީގައި ދިދަދަނޑިއަކަށް ނަގާފައި ހުންނަ ވަހުތާނެއް ހުރެއެވެ. މި ވަހުތާނުގައިވެސް ހުންނަނީ އައްލޯހު ދެވީގެ ހަނދުފަޅި ފާހަގަ ޖަހާފައެވެ
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Saudi senior-most cleric: An Injustice NOT to Marry 10-Year-Old Girls...
Saudi Arabia's senior-most cleric said girls as young as 10 years old can be married, local media reported on Wednesday.The powerful Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh said in a speech late on Monday that Islamic Sharia law allows the practice of pre-teen girls getting married, and that critics of the practice were doing the girls "an injustice," reports said.
"We hear often in the media about the marriage of minors. We must know that Sharia law is not unjust for women," the cleric is quoted as saying.
"If it is said that a woman below 15 cannot be married, that is wrong. If a girl exceeds 10 or 12 then she is eligible for marriage, and whoever thinks she is too young, then he or she is wrong and has done her an injustice."
His comment came in the wake of several well-publicized cases of young girls being married to men sometimes old enough to be their great-grandfathers.
On Monday a court in Taif allowed an 11-year-old girl to separate from her 75-year-old husband after the girl's mother petitioned the court, according to a report in Okaz newspaper. The girl's father had arranged the marriage in exchange for a dowry, it said.
In December a Saudi court at Unayzah, 220 kilometres (135 miles) north of Riyadh, rejected a plea to divorce an eight-year-old girl married off by her father to a man who is 58, saying the case should wait until the girl reaches puberty. [....]
From The Times of India
..............................................................................................
Maldivian Islamic Scholars have argued for this before. In 2006 the revered Islamic Scholar "B A" Naseem trained in Saudi Arabia wrote and published a letter in Minivan Daily
ކޮންމެއަކަސް އަށާރައަހަރު ފުރުނީމާނޫނީ ކައިވެނި ނުކުރެވޭ ޤާނޫނެއް ދީނާޚިލާފަށް ފާސްކުރުމުން
BA Naseem has a large following in our country. In the run-up to the Presidential elections, Adam “BA” Naseem in his capacity as MDP Religious Council President called for a second consideration after Anni announced Shadow Health Minister Dr Aminath Jaleel as his nominated running mate to the national council on 11th August 2007. Health Minister Dr Aminath Jaleel was dropped as Vice Presidential candidate to be replaced by the current and male Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.
What do these people want for our children? mufa'khathat?
"We hear often in the media about the marriage of minors. We must know that Sharia law is not unjust for women," the cleric is quoted as saying.
"If it is said that a woman below 15 cannot be married, that is wrong. If a girl exceeds 10 or 12 then she is eligible for marriage, and whoever thinks she is too young, then he or she is wrong and has done her an injustice."
His comment came in the wake of several well-publicized cases of young girls being married to men sometimes old enough to be their great-grandfathers.
On Monday a court in Taif allowed an 11-year-old girl to separate from her 75-year-old husband after the girl's mother petitioned the court, according to a report in Okaz newspaper. The girl's father had arranged the marriage in exchange for a dowry, it said.
In December a Saudi court at Unayzah, 220 kilometres (135 miles) north of Riyadh, rejected a plea to divorce an eight-year-old girl married off by her father to a man who is 58, saying the case should wait until the girl reaches puberty. [....]
From The Times of India
..............................................................................................
Maldivian Islamic Scholars have argued for this before. In 2006 the revered Islamic Scholar "B A" Naseem trained in Saudi Arabia wrote and published a letter in Minivan Daily
ކޮންމެއަކަސް އަށާރައަހަރު ފުރުނީމާނޫނީ ކައިވެނި ނުކުރެވޭ ޤާނޫނެއް ދީނާޚިލާފަށް ފާސްކުރުމުން
BA Naseem has a large following in our country. In the run-up to the Presidential elections, Adam “BA” Naseem in his capacity as MDP Religious Council President called for a second consideration after Anni announced Shadow Health Minister Dr Aminath Jaleel as his nominated running mate to the national council on 11th August 2007. Health Minister Dr Aminath Jaleel was dropped as Vice Presidential candidate to be replaced by the current and male Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik.
What do these people want for our children? mufa'khathat?Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Islam's selective outrage
Muslims cannot claim a monopoly on anger over the events in Gaza while ignoring the suffering of other Muslims and non-Muslims
A Muslim writer tries to do what her religion apparently cannot - spark human empathy within the Islamic community.Much has been been written about the Gaza conflict and several pieces concern the impact that events are having on British Muslims – whether it's alienating them from the political process or driving them to radicalisation.
More than a few commenters, such as Johnton, have claimed that the UK's Muslim communities have largely remained silent on the other catastrophes and atrocities to have affected their brethren in recent times. Two years ago, at a press conference, I asked Fareena Alam of the Muslim magazine Q News why Muslims were so quick to condemn western governments for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet appeared to show little heartbreak or anger over suffering in Darfur.
She replied that it was "shameful" the way British Muslims had responded to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan: "We can get hot and bothered about Iraq. There is a lot of information about Darfur. There is no doubt this is Muslim-on-Muslim violence. In this situation where are these values we talk about, that killing one life is about killing humanity? It is a huge embarrassment to us. We need to have a very big conversation about this."
It was a subject I explored in a podcast about attitudes towards the ummah, the global family all Muslims are supposed to belong to. In reality people only refer to it when it suits them. I remember talking to Iraqis in London who said they were criticised by fellow Muslims for having allowed western soldiers into their country. They also said they had little or no social contact with the more prosperous and established Muslim communities in the UK and that they were seen as outsiders. That they were Shia Muslims further increased their sense of isolation. So much for solidarity.
Another case of a pick-and-mix approach to the ummah involves members of the Afghan community in Birmingham. They didn't have access to local mosques or community centres where they could meet or pray. Birmingham has a larger-than-average Muslim population and you would have thought someone could give them room hire at a reduced rate.
I appreciate that conflict in the Middle East has long been a lightning-rod issue for Muslims, but Muslims don't have a monopoly on this outrage. Besides, if you believe in the ummah then be consistent – not just when you believe there to be a western enemy. Here's another thought, instead of crying foul when it's just Muslims who are suffering, why not react this way when anyone is affected, regardless of what they believe? When there's a hurricane, a cyclone or civil unrest that leaves people dead, homeless or in the grip of oppression? It is your duty to protest and react, not because you're Muslim, but because you're human. Looking after your own – and only your own – gives the lie to the idea that Islam is a religion of compassion. In fact, it says Islam is a religion of self-interest.
Why Palestinian Victims Get More Attention Than Others
Since 1983 in neighboring Sri Lanka , 70,000 lives were lost. Did any Maldivian shed a tear? Where was the outrage over the loss of human lives? Is the value of any human life the same? Or is their a double standard? I fail to understand how some lives are more valuable than others and are deliberately treated differently.
Michael Medved gives some perspective below:-
Michael Medved gives some perspective below:-
In the first days of 2009, the forces of civilization won a decisive and perhaps even definitive victory against one of the world's most fanatical and bloodthirsty terrorist organizations.
While media outlets focused on the far less brutal and costly conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Army of Sri Lanka finally overran Kilinochchi, the long-time base of operations for the "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" – the implacable guerillas whose depredations produced as many as 500,000 internal refugees. According to official government and UN figures, the fighting in Sri Lanka since 1983 claimed at least 70,000 lives among fighters and civilians on both sides.
By contrast, the battles between Israelis and Palestinians in the same period (1983-2009) killed at the very most some 15,000 -- including civilian and military who fell in direct combat together with all victims of various terror operations.
Why, then, should the world give so much more attention to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle than to a cruel, seemingly endless fight between Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil Hindus that produced nearly five times the number of casualties?
The Palestinians' own figures claim 2,162 dead in the First Intifada (1987-93) and another 5,837 in the Second Intifada (2000-2005), with Palestinian-on-Palestinian savagery responsible for at least one-fourth of those who perished. In the 2006 Lebanon War between Israel and the Shiite terrorists of Hezbollah (not strictly speaking a clash between Israelis and Palestinians), the Lebanese government identified 700 Hezbollah fighters and 1,191 civilians who lost their lives.In the first week of Israel's current military operation to stop Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza, the U.N. reported that 500 died, at most 125 of them civilians.
At precisely the same time, Ugandan rebels slaughtered an estimated 400 civilians in the Eastern Congo (according to the Catholic aid agency Caritas) and piled at least 150 of their horribly mutilated bodies like cord wood in a church sanctuary on Christmas day. "The scene at the church was unbelievable," Captain Chris Magezi of the Ugandan Army told the Associated Press. "It was horrendous. On the floor were dead bodies of mostly women and children cut in pieces."
Why should the suffering and martyrdom of these African villagers count for less than the simultaneous, vastly more publicized misfortunes of Palestinians in Gaza?
What gives Palestinian victims their special status—a standing that brings with it a wildly disproportionate share of the world's concern and attention?
The United Nations General Assembly, as well as the Security Council, blithely ignored the more numerous and sadistic civilian casualties in the Congo, and paid no heed to the climax of an unspeakably bloody 16 year war in Sri Lanka, while investing virtually all their time in obsessive debates over the defensive Israeli incursion into Gaza.
What makes the residents of Gaza so uniquely worthy of compassion, concern and publicity from western journalists and even policy makers?
None of the most straightforward or convenient answers to these questions begin to account for the unbalanced focus on Palestinian woe.
No, the struggle between Israel and Hamas hardly counts as "the world's most dangerous conflict." The rag-tag jihadists of the Gaza strip, with their largely home-made rockets and twisted, suicidal impulses, may well be a menace to the peace of the region but hardly constitute an existential threat to civilization itself. In India, on the other hand, Islamic terror has claimed 4,000 deaths since 2004 (a far higher level of blood-letting than anywhere in the Palestinian territories or Israel proper) and the core conflict in south Asia involves two well-armed nuclear powers (Pakistan and India) who have fought several devastating wars in the recent past.Strategic or financial considerations also fail to explain the ridiculously overwrought concentration on Israel and its enemies. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians control any oil resources, yet a titanic struggle between two of the world's three leading petro-powers (the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88) killed 1.3 million soldiers and civilians and drew distinctly limited attention from global media.
The history of displacement among Palestinians hardly makes them unique among the peoples of the world, though they've seized on the term "refugee" as the very essence of their identity. At most 750,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees after five Arab states simultaneously attacked Israel in 1948, but within the next ten years an even greater number of Jews (800,000) became refugees from persecution in Islamic nations in North Africa in the Middle East and resettled in the Jewish state. At precisely the same moment that Israel won world recognition in 1948, the partition of India and Pakistan led to 14.5 million refugees (and at least 500,000 deaths in the "Independence Riots"). The Lebanon Civil War of 1975-1990 produced 900,000 refugees (according to that tormented nation's own government) and an estimated 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in horrific clashes between Arab Muslims and Arab Christians.
Jew-haters (who feel inevitably energized and encouraged by any conflict involving Israel) explain the inappropriate obsession with conflicts like the current confrontation in Gaza as a reflection of the unsavory influence of Jewish interests. According to this logic, the 2% of Americans who identify as Jews want special attention to these battles because of their tribal identification with cousins in Israel. This may account for some portion of the U.S. fascination with the Middle East, together with concern of committed Christians regarding the "Holy Land" where Jesus spent all his years on earth. But such explanations hardly account for the European fixation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nations of the Old World identify as famously, stubbornly secular rather than Christian, and among the 500 million citizens in the E.U., Jews account for less than one-fourth of one-percent (Hitler took care of the rest).
Unfortunately, an absence of Jews doesn't mean an absence of paranoid, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. The Japanese, for instance, seem fascinated with accounts of "Jewish Power" and eagerly scoop up frequent bestsellers about Hebraic control of the world financial system, despite a nationwide Jewish population of less than 4,000. Even for nations that remain altogether "Judenrein" ("Pure of Jews") the fascination with the Children of Israel seems to remain a factor, directing an illogical (and unwanted) focus toward their modern-day descendants in the Middle East. As the old-saying goes, "Jews are News," and remain newsworthy even in parts of the world where they haven't lived for centuries. In this sense, the Palestinians receive disproportionate notice not because of any distinctive quality of their own nationhood or history, but because their purported oppressors remain the most controversial, compelling, loathed, admired and polarizing people on the planet.
Continue reading Michael Medved at Townhall
Monday, January 12, 2009
Holy Warriors threaten to behead Madonna over Gaza
She studied a little Kabbalah, in a frivolous, Hollywood kind of way, and suddenly she finds herself on a hitlist.
Madonna has urgently beefed up her family's security after being targeted by Muslim fanatics seeking revenge for Israel's attacks on Gaza.
One Palestinian terrorist chief has threatened to BEHEAD the superstar who is a dedicated member of the Jewish Kabbalah sect.
Madonna is also desperately worried for the safety of her children Lourdes, 12, Rocco, eight, and adopted David Banda, three.
We can reveal the 50-year-old singer has now...
Got two ruthless Israeli former secret service agents to beef up her security.
Warned her ex-husband Guy Ritchie his home in busy central London is vulnerable to attack when he has the kids.
Told him to MOVE to a more secure pad where the children will be safe.
A source close to the singer said: "Madonna is well known for her Kabbalah faith and support for Israel, having visited the country several times.
"This seems to upset extreme Muslims who forget she respects people of all faiths whether Islamic, Christian or Buddhist. Like anyone else she would like a peaceful end to the problems in Gaza.
"But she is beside herself with worry, not just for her own safety but for that of the children."
Last week The People uncovered the hatred aimed at Madonna when we infiltrated secret fundamentalist Muslim websites. Our investigator posed as a British extremist to gain entry to the password-protected sites.
On the notorious Islambase site, a Palestinian terror leader says: "If I meet these whores I will have the honor to be the first one to cut the head off Madonna if they will keep spreading their satanic culture against Islam."
Madonna spreading satanic culture against Islam in 2001
Continue reading the report by Daniel Jones at The People
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Shari'a vs. Civilization - "It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies 'look very different' from free societies."
Modern civilisation is based upon a few axioms. These are held as self-evident, and while not every society has been able to arrive at successful practise of them, they agree with them in principle. These are:
1. Equality of all human beings in the eyes of the law. In particular, men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and members of all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the law.
2. Freedom of beliefs in general, and religion in particular. A person is free to choose the faith and the manner of his worship.
3. Freedom of expression and freedom to dissent. Freedom to intellectually scrutinize any doctrine, including a religious one.
4. Belief in democracy as the ideal mode of governance.
Once again, while no society has arrived at this perfect ideal in practise, most modern nations would agree to all four points in principle.
But not Islam. Not Shari'a. Islamic law (Shari'a) is categorially and emphatically opposed to ALL 4 axioms of modern civilization. Let us inspect each one in turn.
1. Shari'a law denies equality to women and to non-muslims. In particular, the testimony of a woman is worth only half of a man, and the testimony of a non-muslim is worth only half of a muslim. This is agreed upon by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki).
2. Shari'a law does not allow a muslim to leave his faith. The penalty for a muslim who leaves Islam is death, according to all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is based on numerous Hadith where either Muhammad directly says that those who leave Islam must be killed, or his close companions bear witness to him having said so. In several Hadith, this sentence is actually carried out (i.e., a former muslim is put to death, and this is recorded in the Hadith).
Shari'a law also does not give non-muslims the right to build their places of worship. It does not allow idol worship as a means of worship. Strict implementations of shari'a law demolish idols, such as the Taliban's destruction of the centuries old Bamiyan Buddhas.
3. Shari'a does not allow any sort of open discussion of Islam. Criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is punishable by death. This is part of law even in countries that do not have full fledged Shari'a law, such as Pakistan. Under Pakistan's Tauheen-e-rasool (literally "disrespect of Prophet") act, any criticism of Muhammad is punishable with death.
4. Shari'a is a strict alternative to democracy. In other words, Shari'a posits itself as a political system, and does not recognize the legitimacy of any other political system such as democracy. Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence says governance by Shari'a is the only acceptable form of Islamic government. Democracy is categorically rejected as an acceptable system of governance. Almost every Islamist writing pours scorn on democracy and secularism as "western inventions" that are "contaminating the muslim ummah."
So Islamic Shari'a law is opposed to all four basic axioms of modern civilization as we know it. It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies "look very different" from free societies. I have not even gone into subtleties such as barbarity of punishments (such as stoning to death, chopping limbs etc. which are imposed under Shari'a law). I am speaking simply of the basic axioms that underlie modern human civilization and society and which mankind has generally come to agree upon, with the one exception of Islam. Islam rejects all these axioms.
........
1. Equality of all human beings in the eyes of the law. In particular, men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and members of all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the law.
2. Freedom of beliefs in general, and religion in particular. A person is free to choose the faith and the manner of his worship.
3. Freedom of expression and freedom to dissent. Freedom to intellectually scrutinize any doctrine, including a religious one.
4. Belief in democracy as the ideal mode of governance.
Once again, while no society has arrived at this perfect ideal in practise, most modern nations would agree to all four points in principle.
But not Islam. Not Shari'a. Islamic law (Shari'a) is categorially and emphatically opposed to ALL 4 axioms of modern civilization. Let us inspect each one in turn.
1. Shari'a law denies equality to women and to non-muslims. In particular, the testimony of a woman is worth only half of a man, and the testimony of a non-muslim is worth only half of a muslim. This is agreed upon by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki).
2. Shari'a law does not allow a muslim to leave his faith. The penalty for a muslim who leaves Islam is death, according to all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is based on numerous Hadith where either Muhammad directly says that those who leave Islam must be killed, or his close companions bear witness to him having said so. In several Hadith, this sentence is actually carried out (i.e., a former muslim is put to death, and this is recorded in the Hadith).
Shari'a law also does not give non-muslims the right to build their places of worship. It does not allow idol worship as a means of worship. Strict implementations of shari'a law demolish idols, such as the Taliban's destruction of the centuries old Bamiyan Buddhas.
3. Shari'a does not allow any sort of open discussion of Islam. Criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is punishable by death. This is part of law even in countries that do not have full fledged Shari'a law, such as Pakistan. Under Pakistan's Tauheen-e-rasool (literally "disrespect of Prophet") act, any criticism of Muhammad is punishable with death.
4. Shari'a is a strict alternative to democracy. In other words, Shari'a posits itself as a political system, and does not recognize the legitimacy of any other political system such as democracy. Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence says governance by Shari'a is the only acceptable form of Islamic government. Democracy is categorically rejected as an acceptable system of governance. Almost every Islamist writing pours scorn on democracy and secularism as "western inventions" that are "contaminating the muslim ummah."
So Islamic Shari'a law is opposed to all four basic axioms of modern civilization as we know it. It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies "look very different" from free societies. I have not even gone into subtleties such as barbarity of punishments (such as stoning to death, chopping limbs etc. which are imposed under Shari'a law). I am speaking simply of the basic axioms that underlie modern human civilization and society and which mankind has generally come to agree upon, with the one exception of Islam. Islam rejects all these axioms.
........
...
With thanks to Dharmaveer
Saturday, January 10, 2009
What a strange religion: when you go in they cut off a little piece of you, and when you go out, they cut you into little pieces
The following is an extract of an interview given by Father Zakaria Boutrus, a Coptic priest.
"The punishment of killing any Muslim who abandons Islam is one of the most important factors terrifying all Muslim. He does not dare question the truth of Islam, so that his thoughts will not lead him to abandon Islam. In such a case, he would receive the punishment for apostasy: He would lose his life, and his property and wives would permitted for all.
"This reminds me of a true story that I heard about the preachers who spread Islam in Africa. They reached a certain place in order to spread Islam, and they asked one of the locals: 'Do you prefer to worship one god and have four wives, or to worship three gods and have one wife?' We, of course, don't worship three gods, but that's what they said. The African said 'I like four women, and I don't care which god. I want four women.' So they told him to say the shahada, and he did.
"Then they told him he had to be circumcised in order to become a Muslim. He asked: 'Do I really have to? I am a grown man.' They answered: 'Yes, you have to, in order to get the monthly stipend, and you can marry four wives.' The man agreed, and underwent the pains of circumcision despite his advanced age. They began to pay him the monthly stipend, and after a few months they cancelled the stipend. The man went and asked: 'Where's the money?' They told him: 'Now you are deep in Islam, you don't need the monthly stipend any more.' He threatened: 'I will abandon Islam.' They said: 'If you leave Islam, we will carry out the apostasy punishment on you.' He asked what it was, and they said: 'We will chop off your head, and cut you into pieces.' This African man began to mumble: 'What a strange religion: when you go in they cut off a little piece of you, and when you go out, they cut you into little pieces.'
"This is the punishment for apostasy that keeps people afraid. Even when they reach the truth, they're afraid to express their opinion. There are other factors, such as upbringing from a young age. Children are brainwashed that Islam is the truth, that Mohammad is the last prophet, that the Christians are infidels and that the Jews are infidels. They repeat it constantly.
"Since early childhood, he cannot think properly, because a certain way of thinking is forced on him. In addition, the religion of Islam satisfies the human urges, just like our (African) friend who said he preferred four wives. 'Two, three, four, or however many you can.' It satisfies the sexual urges and man's desire for ownership. It goes hand in hand with human nature. It does not exalt human nature, but reduces itself to the level of human nature."
Thanks to the Middle East Media Reseach Institute
"The punishment of killing any Muslim who abandons Islam is one of the most important factors terrifying all Muslim. He does not dare question the truth of Islam, so that his thoughts will not lead him to abandon Islam. In such a case, he would receive the punishment for apostasy: He would lose his life, and his property and wives would permitted for all.
"This reminds me of a true story that I heard about the preachers who spread Islam in Africa. They reached a certain place in order to spread Islam, and they asked one of the locals: 'Do you prefer to worship one god and have four wives, or to worship three gods and have one wife?' We, of course, don't worship three gods, but that's what they said. The African said 'I like four women, and I don't care which god. I want four women.' So they told him to say the shahada, and he did.
"Then they told him he had to be circumcised in order to become a Muslim. He asked: 'Do I really have to? I am a grown man.' They answered: 'Yes, you have to, in order to get the monthly stipend, and you can marry four wives.' The man agreed, and underwent the pains of circumcision despite his advanced age. They began to pay him the monthly stipend, and after a few months they cancelled the stipend. The man went and asked: 'Where's the money?' They told him: 'Now you are deep in Islam, you don't need the monthly stipend any more.' He threatened: 'I will abandon Islam.' They said: 'If you leave Islam, we will carry out the apostasy punishment on you.' He asked what it was, and they said: 'We will chop off your head, and cut you into pieces.' This African man began to mumble: 'What a strange religion: when you go in they cut off a little piece of you, and when you go out, they cut you into little pieces.'
"This is the punishment for apostasy that keeps people afraid. Even when they reach the truth, they're afraid to express their opinion. There are other factors, such as upbringing from a young age. Children are brainwashed that Islam is the truth, that Mohammad is the last prophet, that the Christians are infidels and that the Jews are infidels. They repeat it constantly.
"Since early childhood, he cannot think properly, because a certain way of thinking is forced on him. In addition, the religion of Islam satisfies the human urges, just like our (African) friend who said he preferred four wives. 'Two, three, four, or however many you can.' It satisfies the sexual urges and man's desire for ownership. It goes hand in hand with human nature. It does not exalt human nature, but reduces itself to the level of human nature."
Thanks to the Middle East Media Reseach Institute
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The Preservation of the Qur'an
Claims of the Qur'an's 'perfect preservation' turn out to be a case study in denial. Islam's Amazingly Unfalsifiable Claims--Part One: The Preservation of the Qur'an :-
Suppose my friend Bassam presents the following hypothesis: "There are undetectable aliens living on Pluto." Suppose I travel to Pluto in search of these aliens. I set up all kinds of instruments to see if there is any evidence of aliens. I return empty-handed. "Bassam," I say. "You said there were aliens on Pluto. I checked. But there aren't any." "Well," Bassam replies, "I said they're undetectable, didn't I?"
Here I would have a difficult time understanding Bassam's meaning. He's making a positive claim, namely, that there are aliens on Pluto. But at the same time, by saying that these aliens are undetectable, he's ruling out our ability to test his claim. His claim is unfalsifiable, meaning there's no way, even in theory, that we can prove his theory false via experiment or observation. How useful are such hypotheses?
Consider now the following claim made by Bassam and other Muslims: "The Qur'an has been perfectly preserved." At first, it seems like such a claim is falsifiable. That is, it seems that we can test the claim by doing some historical research. So we do a little research and we learn that Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, two of Muhammad's top reciters of the Qur'an, had a different number of Surahs in their versions of the Qur'an. One would think that this falsifies the Muslim claim. "Not so," says Bassam. "Abdullah and Ubayy were simply wrong. The Qur'an we have today is, by definition, the correct one. Hence, everyone who has a different number of chapters must be wrong." So, given such a claim, even if we were to find out that every single one of Muhammad's companions except Zaid ibn Thabit had a different number of Surahs, this wouldn't count as any evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, since, by definition, only the Qur'an we have today is the correct one.
So we do a little more investigation. We find that there were all kinds of textual variants among early Qur'anic texts. That is, if we were to turn to Surah 2 in the Qur'an of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, this Surah would differ from that in the Qur'an of Ibn Masud, which would differ from that in the Qur'an of Zaid ibn Thabit, etc. These Qur'ans have spelling differences, different words, different phrases, etc. Surely this will count as evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, won't it? "No, it won't," replies the Muslim. "You see, there were seven [or ten, or twenty] different readings of the Qur'an, and all of them were correct." Here we find that there can be all sorts of differences among copies of the Qur'an, and yet this doesn't at all affect the hypothesis that the Qur'an we have today is a perfect copy of the tablet in heaven.
We dig deeper in search of the truth, and we find Muslim sources reporting that massive sections of the Qur'an have been lost. We find Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b reporting that more than a hundred verses of Surah 33 are missing. Surely this will count as proof that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved. "Not so," says the Muslim. "Whatever verses are missing from the Qur'an have been abrogated (despite the fact that the Qur'an contains other verses that have been abrogated). You see, Allah changed his mind quite a bit, and he often gave us verses, only to take those verses back." Thus, we find that no matter how much evidence there is that numerous verses are missing from the Qur'an, this will never count as any evidence whatsoever against perfect preservation.
Here non-Muslims are quite confused. Were the missing verses of Surah 33 part of the tablet in heaven? If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is very different from the Qur'an in heaven. If not, then why were they revealed as part of the Qur'an? While we're at it, does the perfect Qur'an in heaven contain all seven readings (this would be quite an odd book). If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is quite different from the Qur'an in heaven, since Uthman destroyed most (but not all) of the different readings. If not, weren't the variants corruptions of the original, which contained no variants?
In the end, no matter what the evidence says, Muslims will continue to claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, for they have insulated themselves from the evidence (and this is extremely common in Islam). But non-Muslims are left asking ourselves, "What is the difference between, on the one hand, a perfectly preserved book whose early copies contain different numbers of chapters, different verses, different spellings, different words, different phrases, a different order of chapters, and which, at different times, contained completely different passages (for some were abrogated), and, on the other hand, a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved at all?" As far as evidence is concerned, there is no difference between the Qur'an and a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved, which is why the Muslim claim makes so little sense to anyone who isn't a Muslim. 
Suppose my friend Bassam presents the following hypothesis: "There are undetectable aliens living on Pluto." Suppose I travel to Pluto in search of these aliens. I set up all kinds of instruments to see if there is any evidence of aliens. I return empty-handed. "Bassam," I say. "You said there were aliens on Pluto. I checked. But there aren't any." "Well," Bassam replies, "I said they're undetectable, didn't I?"
Here I would have a difficult time understanding Bassam's meaning. He's making a positive claim, namely, that there are aliens on Pluto. But at the same time, by saying that these aliens are undetectable, he's ruling out our ability to test his claim. His claim is unfalsifiable, meaning there's no way, even in theory, that we can prove his theory false via experiment or observation. How useful are such hypotheses?
Consider now the following claim made by Bassam and other Muslims: "The Qur'an has been perfectly preserved." At first, it seems like such a claim is falsifiable. That is, it seems that we can test the claim by doing some historical research. So we do a little research and we learn that Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, two of Muhammad's top reciters of the Qur'an, had a different number of Surahs in their versions of the Qur'an. One would think that this falsifies the Muslim claim. "Not so," says Bassam. "Abdullah and Ubayy were simply wrong. The Qur'an we have today is, by definition, the correct one. Hence, everyone who has a different number of chapters must be wrong." So, given such a claim, even if we were to find out that every single one of Muhammad's companions except Zaid ibn Thabit had a different number of Surahs, this wouldn't count as any evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, since, by definition, only the Qur'an we have today is the correct one.
So we do a little more investigation. We find that there were all kinds of textual variants among early Qur'anic texts. That is, if we were to turn to Surah 2 in the Qur'an of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, this Surah would differ from that in the Qur'an of Ibn Masud, which would differ from that in the Qur'an of Zaid ibn Thabit, etc. These Qur'ans have spelling differences, different words, different phrases, etc. Surely this will count as evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, won't it? "No, it won't," replies the Muslim. "You see, there were seven [or ten, or twenty] different readings of the Qur'an, and all of them were correct." Here we find that there can be all sorts of differences among copies of the Qur'an, and yet this doesn't at all affect the hypothesis that the Qur'an we have today is a perfect copy of the tablet in heaven.
We dig deeper in search of the truth, and we find Muslim sources reporting that massive sections of the Qur'an have been lost. We find Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b reporting that more than a hundred verses of Surah 33 are missing. Surely this will count as proof that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved. "Not so," says the Muslim. "Whatever verses are missing from the Qur'an have been abrogated (despite the fact that the Qur'an contains other verses that have been abrogated). You see, Allah changed his mind quite a bit, and he often gave us verses, only to take those verses back." Thus, we find that no matter how much evidence there is that numerous verses are missing from the Qur'an, this will never count as any evidence whatsoever against perfect preservation.
Here non-Muslims are quite confused. Were the missing verses of Surah 33 part of the tablet in heaven? If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is very different from the Qur'an in heaven. If not, then why were they revealed as part of the Qur'an? While we're at it, does the perfect Qur'an in heaven contain all seven readings (this would be quite an odd book). If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is quite different from the Qur'an in heaven, since Uthman destroyed most (but not all) of the different readings. If not, weren't the variants corruptions of the original, which contained no variants?
In the end, no matter what the evidence says, Muslims will continue to claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, for they have insulated themselves from the evidence (and this is extremely common in Islam). But non-Muslims are left asking ourselves, "What is the difference between, on the one hand, a perfectly preserved book whose early copies contain different numbers of chapters, different verses, different spellings, different words, different phrases, a different order of chapters, and which, at different times, contained completely different passages (for some were abrogated), and, on the other hand, a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved at all?" As far as evidence is concerned, there is no difference between the Qur'an and a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved, which is why the Muslim claim makes so little sense to anyone who isn't a Muslim. 
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
"progressive" Muslims and "fundamentalist" Muslims
There is some debate going on about "progressive" Muslims and "fundamentalist" Muslims. Muslims will find nothing wrong in their texts. So they lay the blame on interpretation - "I find that the haters of Islam always take advantage of the literalist intepretation of our Holy Quran not recognizing that meaning is contextual and requires careful intepretation."
This writer points out that nothing the so-called 'radicals' believe about Islam is outside the Qur'an and Hadith:-
There is a serious problem we run into when we try to define "radical Islam." What is "radical Islam?"
First of all, nothing the radical Islamists say is outside the Kuran and Hadith. The Kuran and Hadith are the pillars of Islam, not only of radical Islam. That poses a serious problem. Because no muslim body has ever stated that parts of the Kuran and Hadith are now "outdated" or "irrelevant." The Hadith, for instance, gives numerous instances of rape of female captives captured after defeating infidels, in the presence of Mohammed. Since Mohammed is considered the perfect person and example for all to follow by ALL Of Islam, what does this mean? It means that ALL muslims must find this practise agreeable, at least in principle, and therein lies the problem.
People say "radical Islam" but what they mean is the radical verses in the Kuran and Hadith. Radical by whose standards? Not by the standards of Islam, since these verses have been accepted without any controversy within Islam for centuries. These verses are not radical for muslims, but they are radical by non-muslim modern civilization.
Take another example - the verse 4:34 in the Kuran that says that wives who are disobedient must be beaten. "Radical muslims" like the Taliban used to frequently quote this verse to justify their open violence against women. But this verse is in the Kuran! It is not in a separate book called "Kuran for radicals." It is in the one and only Kuran, and is equal to any other verse. So why is it radical? Because in today's modern society, we do not find this practise acceptable.
So it seems that the problem is that Islam is radical. It is not that there is a separate religion called "radical Islam", but that the religion of Islam has many components that are considered radical/unacceptable/violent by modern societies.
So what is the way out? My firm belief is that a reformation within Islam is needed. It won't happen though till we obfuscate plain facts. The plain facts are that numerous verses in the Kuran and Hadith say things which are simply unacceptable (and considered barbaric) by today's society. Let us say it as it is, instead of pretending that there is a separate ideology called "radical Islam." There isn't. Nothing that Bin Laden says is outside the Kuran and Hadith. As someone said - there are radical muslims and moderate muslims, but there is nothing called moderate Islam. Islam IS RADICAL. To make Islam moderate, we would have to expurgate many verses (and entire chapters, such as that on raping female captives without impregnating them, so that their slave price does not fall) from the Kuran and Hadith. Are we prepared to ask moderate muslims to do that?
The other obfuscation is that some people are "hijacking Islam." Who is? Bin Laden? Every single action he has done is justified by the Kuran and Hadith, and he has taken great pains to provide the verses that justify his actions. Not only that, for centuries, people like that were hailed as Ghazis (holy warriors) within Islam. It is not for nothing that in the muslim world, a majority of people hail him as a hero. It is only when you are trying to hide from the scrutiny of the west that you say he has "hijacked Islam." He is merely a person who follows Islam to the word. He is, in many ways, a true muslim. In numerous Hadith, Muhammed says that the best muslim is not one who fasts and prays, but who gets on his horse and fights against infidels (especially polytheists) for the spread of Islam. That is what Bin Laden is doing. What about the innocent women and children he kills? Guess what - the Hadith emphatically state that it is perfectly alright to kill the women and children of polytheists. Nothing Bin Laden does is outside the Kuran and Hadith. He is not a "radical" muslim, he is merely a practising muslim!
Let us be honest about this - the problem is not a chimera called "radical Islam." The problem IS ISLAM. Islam, as it exists in the Kuran and Hadith, is far too violent, intolerant, and yes, "radical", to co-exist with modern society. The moment a muslim starts following true Islam, he appears incredibly radical to us all, and we say "he is a radical muslim" when all he is doing is following his religion!
This writer points out that nothing the so-called 'radicals' believe about Islam is outside the Qur'an and Hadith:-
There is a serious problem we run into when we try to define "radical Islam." What is "radical Islam?"
First of all, nothing the radical Islamists say is outside the Kuran and Hadith. The Kuran and Hadith are the pillars of Islam, not only of radical Islam. That poses a serious problem. Because no muslim body has ever stated that parts of the Kuran and Hadith are now "outdated" or "irrelevant." The Hadith, for instance, gives numerous instances of rape of female captives captured after defeating infidels, in the presence of Mohammed. Since Mohammed is considered the perfect person and example for all to follow by ALL Of Islam, what does this mean? It means that ALL muslims must find this practise agreeable, at least in principle, and therein lies the problem.
People say "radical Islam" but what they mean is the radical verses in the Kuran and Hadith. Radical by whose standards? Not by the standards of Islam, since these verses have been accepted without any controversy within Islam for centuries. These verses are not radical for muslims, but they are radical by non-muslim modern civilization.
Take another example - the verse 4:34 in the Kuran that says that wives who are disobedient must be beaten. "Radical muslims" like the Taliban used to frequently quote this verse to justify their open violence against women. But this verse is in the Kuran! It is not in a separate book called "Kuran for radicals." It is in the one and only Kuran, and is equal to any other verse. So why is it radical? Because in today's modern society, we do not find this practise acceptable.
So it seems that the problem is that Islam is radical. It is not that there is a separate religion called "radical Islam", but that the religion of Islam has many components that are considered radical/unacceptable/violent by modern societies.
So what is the way out? My firm belief is that a reformation within Islam is needed. It won't happen though till we obfuscate plain facts. The plain facts are that numerous verses in the Kuran and Hadith say things which are simply unacceptable (and considered barbaric) by today's society. Let us say it as it is, instead of pretending that there is a separate ideology called "radical Islam." There isn't. Nothing that Bin Laden says is outside the Kuran and Hadith. As someone said - there are radical muslims and moderate muslims, but there is nothing called moderate Islam. Islam IS RADICAL. To make Islam moderate, we would have to expurgate many verses (and entire chapters, such as that on raping female captives without impregnating them, so that their slave price does not fall) from the Kuran and Hadith. Are we prepared to ask moderate muslims to do that?
The other obfuscation is that some people are "hijacking Islam." Who is? Bin Laden? Every single action he has done is justified by the Kuran and Hadith, and he has taken great pains to provide the verses that justify his actions. Not only that, for centuries, people like that were hailed as Ghazis (holy warriors) within Islam. It is not for nothing that in the muslim world, a majority of people hail him as a hero. It is only when you are trying to hide from the scrutiny of the west that you say he has "hijacked Islam." He is merely a person who follows Islam to the word. He is, in many ways, a true muslim. In numerous Hadith, Muhammed says that the best muslim is not one who fasts and prays, but who gets on his horse and fights against infidels (especially polytheists) for the spread of Islam. That is what Bin Laden is doing. What about the innocent women and children he kills? Guess what - the Hadith emphatically state that it is perfectly alright to kill the women and children of polytheists. Nothing Bin Laden does is outside the Kuran and Hadith. He is not a "radical" muslim, he is merely a practising muslim!
Let us be honest about this - the problem is not a chimera called "radical Islam." The problem IS ISLAM. Islam, as it exists in the Kuran and Hadith, is far too violent, intolerant, and yes, "radical", to co-exist with modern society. The moment a muslim starts following true Islam, he appears incredibly radical to us all, and we say "he is a radical muslim" when all he is doing is following his religion!
Hamas brings back crucifixion ...(no joke)
On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.
Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas. source
..........
Now some of uninformed Maldive Muslim is bound to ask - where this is in Islam or Koran or Sharia Law ...?
Here is your answer in advance:-
Surah 5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful.
(The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
Read more about crucifixion and mutilation prescribed by Islam at this link
Monday, January 05, 2009
Ibra dances around the hot coals..
Naimbe' in his comment says "I know writing a comment that has anything to do with Islam could be akin to a walk through burning coal. This has become so because some people believe that they have a monopoly on religion. And this perceived monopoly leads to intolerance. And intolerance, as you say is a very disturbing development regarding the religious discourse - not only in the Maldives but in the entire Islamic Ummah. "
Ibrahim Ismail, Member of Parliament, dances around the burning coals of the issue of :
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance"
in this posting at his blog.
"Belief is a deeply personal thing, and religious belief is a commitment one makes to oneself, out of one’s own volition. No matter what is said and done, ultimately, religion for each person has a profoundly different meaning as it relates to the psyche of each individual which is shaped by one’s own circumstances, past and present."
Ibra also says :
"I tend to lean towards the progressive end of the spectrum, which stems from my belief that Allah meant us to live our life to the full and that times change and divergent and progressive thinking should not be constricted in the name of religion. This is not say that I deny un-crossable boundaries in Islam."
It will be interesting to know what those "un-crossable boundaries" are for Ibra.
Dhivehistan Report commends and applauds Ibra for taking on the issue. We look forward to more thoughts from Ibra on the subject.
Ibrahim Ismail, Member of Parliament, dances around the burning coals of the issue of :
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance"
in this posting at his blog.
"Belief is a deeply personal thing, and religious belief is a commitment one makes to oneself, out of one’s own volition. No matter what is said and done, ultimately, religion for each person has a profoundly different meaning as it relates to the psyche of each individual which is shaped by one’s own circumstances, past and present."
Ibra also says :
"I tend to lean towards the progressive end of the spectrum, which stems from my belief that Allah meant us to live our life to the full and that times change and divergent and progressive thinking should not be constricted in the name of religion. This is not say that I deny un-crossable boundaries in Islam."
It will be interesting to know what those "un-crossable boundaries" are for Ibra.
Dhivehistan Report commends and applauds Ibra for taking on the issue. We look forward to more thoughts from Ibra on the subject.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Dhivehi aspirations to become Arab people...and consequences..
As we import and embrace the Arab Islam culture, do we know what we are getting?
In pursuit of this sexual imperative Islamic societies have evolved a number of child rearing practices. One unfortunate consequence noted by all “those who have made first-hand observations of Arab family life” is “that the incidence and severity of corporal punishment administered to Arab children is much greater than is the case in the Western world.” Bloom observes that an Arab boy at puberty
…is expelled from the loving world of his mother and sisters into the realm of men. There, hand-holding between males is still allowed, but physical affection between men and women is frowned upon. A vengeful masculinity stands in its place. The result: violent adults.
Social psychologist Patai notes the effect of the cognitive dissonance created by the vast discrepancy in the treatment children receive in the two realms:
The harsh, disciplinarian father is thus counterbalanced by the compassionate loving mother. Accordingly, the budding personality of the boy develops a twofold aspect; one expressive of his self-image and his position inthe larger male world; and the other presented to him by the small world of the women…
The similarity of child rearing practices in “even two such widely separated cultures as those of Morocco and Iraq” show the power of Islamic Arab culture in impressing itself on originally quite diverse ethnicities. Moreover, the effects of such practices on the political life of the Muslim world are grave:
In much of Arab society, the unmerciful approach of fathers to their children continues, and public warmth between men and women is still considered an evil. Perhaps this is why a disproportionate number of Arab adults, stripped of intimacy and thrust into a world in which vulnerable emotion is a sin, have joined extremist movements dedicated to wreaking havoc on the world.
It is undoubtedly the case that Muslim sexual mores creates a greater obsession with sex than occurs in other cultures. It is the Muslim view that both men and women have little or no control over their sexual appetites, and will always copulate given even the slightest opportunity. According to Patai “intense and uncontrolled sexuality is the assumption that underlies the segregation of the sexes … and of the entire strict code and rigid Arab code of sexual conduct.” Furthermore, as another example of the bottling up of male sexual energy:
…the average Arab, unless he happens to live in a larger town … has no sexual experience with women until he marries. If we add the fact that the average Arab does not marry until his middle or even late twenties … we find that usually years pass between sexual maturation and the beginning of licit heterosexual activity.
Homosexuality, although condemned in Muslim law, is a frequent outcome of the Islamic sexual system. As shown above, historically it occurred during periods of raiding and conquest, but it is also common in times of peace. Moreover, in certain parts of the Muslim world, as in the Egyptian Siwa Oasis, it is quite openly practiced “with the shaykhs and the well-to-do men lending their sons to each other.” Reconciling behavior strongly condemned by religious stricture with a common social practice is accomplished by some deft rationalization on the part of many Muslims. Patai points out that among Arabs and Turks homosexuality is justified as an expression of power. The “active homosexual act is considered as an assertion of one’s aggressive masculine superiority, while the acceptance of the role of the passive homosexual is considered extremely degrading and shameful because it casts the man or youth into a submissive, feminine role.”
Glazov emphasizes the utilization of the homosexual act as an expression of the domination of the strong over the weak. Older and stronger unmarried males seek their sexual outlet in “victimizing younger males just the way they were victimized.”
Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.
In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
This cycle of frustration, humiliation and rage has consequences for all members of society. It is an important factor in the abusive child rearing practices detailed above. It is also a cause of violence against, and humiliation of, Muslim women. Patai describes the underlying violence toward women which is always present just beneath the surface of Arab society:
Thus sex is both prohibited, and therefore feared, and desired, and therefore sought after. Both emotions are experienced with considerable intensity, which can be taken as an indication of the intensity of the childhood repression of the sexual interest. After adolescence this repression creates a strong sense of frustration. If, however, the social controls break down, or are eliminated, the repressed aggression engendered by the frustrated sex drive breaks through to the surface and seeks its expression in sexual as well as other aggression. … In an environment where he is unknown, the individual feels that the old taboos with their built-in threat of punishment can be infringed with impunity. A third type of occasion … is at an accidental encounter between a man … and a woman in a place where there are no witnesses. In such a situation, and especially if the woman is not a member of the ingroup, or is a member of a hostile group, her sexual abuse is quite likely to occur.
Glazov emphasizes the denial that surrounds the issue of violence against women and the resulting poisoning of the relations between the sexes:
There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.
In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence. A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture. They threaten the hyper-masculine order.
Another consequence of this syndrome is that women are required to devalue their own worth and deny their own sexuality. Women are viewed as instruments of the devil; lures placed to tempt and deceive Muslim men. Thus from an early age women are required to accept their moral and social inferiority. “Within a few months after weaning, the female infant is well on the way to internalizing the role she will play in life as a woman: a subordinate, a person of little importance, destined to remain most of her life in a servile position in relation to the menfolk who will dominate her life: her father, brothers, husband, sons.” She is also required to acknowledge that only males are allowed sexual privileges. She must accept polygamy and the ease of divorce, as her forbears were required to meekly accept sexual slavery. “Thus, a man does not have to invest in one woman. The concept of "the couple" is shattered; the individual woman is seen as useless and expendable.”
Glazov points to the prevalence of female circumcision in many parts of the Muslim world as being one additional probable consequence of the deep seated misogyny rooted in Islamic culture.
To add to this tragedy: whenever the genital mutilation holocaust is raised, the first chorus that comes from the Muslim community is that this genocide is not rooted in Islam and predates Islam.
Well then, why are Muslim girls this genocide's greatest victims? And why do so many Muslims spend more of their time and energy arguing that female genital mutilation is non-Islamic than campaigning to stop this “un-Islamic” barbaric practise from violating their women and defaming their religion? The answer is simple: female genital mutilation produces the oxygen that Islamic fundamentalism needs to breathe. It helps militant Islam keep intact the foundation on which its life depends: the subjugation and enslavement of women under a rigid system of gender apartheid.
Copied and pasted from "Islamic Expansion and Decline"
The Harem Legacy: Social Pathologies of Modern Islam
As we have seen the culture of the harem degrades women and by restricting the availability of sexual outlets leads to the frustration of large numbers of males. This system has been good at producing and motivating warriors for jihad; for only those successful at spreading Islam could have their frustrations relieved and that in quite an abundant way. However, the consequent pathologies produced by this system afflict Muslim society even today.In pursuit of this sexual imperative Islamic societies have evolved a number of child rearing practices. One unfortunate consequence noted by all “those who have made first-hand observations of Arab family life” is “that the incidence and severity of corporal punishment administered to Arab children is much greater than is the case in the Western world.” Bloom observes that an Arab boy at puberty
…is expelled from the loving world of his mother and sisters into the realm of men. There, hand-holding between males is still allowed, but physical affection between men and women is frowned upon. A vengeful masculinity stands in its place. The result: violent adults.
Social psychologist Patai notes the effect of the cognitive dissonance created by the vast discrepancy in the treatment children receive in the two realms:
The harsh, disciplinarian father is thus counterbalanced by the compassionate loving mother. Accordingly, the budding personality of the boy develops a twofold aspect; one expressive of his self-image and his position inthe larger male world; and the other presented to him by the small world of the women…
The similarity of child rearing practices in “even two such widely separated cultures as those of Morocco and Iraq” show the power of Islamic Arab culture in impressing itself on originally quite diverse ethnicities. Moreover, the effects of such practices on the political life of the Muslim world are grave:
In much of Arab society, the unmerciful approach of fathers to their children continues, and public warmth between men and women is still considered an evil. Perhaps this is why a disproportionate number of Arab adults, stripped of intimacy and thrust into a world in which vulnerable emotion is a sin, have joined extremist movements dedicated to wreaking havoc on the world.
It is undoubtedly the case that Muslim sexual mores creates a greater obsession with sex than occurs in other cultures. It is the Muslim view that both men and women have little or no control over their sexual appetites, and will always copulate given even the slightest opportunity. According to Patai “intense and uncontrolled sexuality is the assumption that underlies the segregation of the sexes … and of the entire strict code and rigid Arab code of sexual conduct.” Furthermore, as another example of the bottling up of male sexual energy:
…the average Arab, unless he happens to live in a larger town … has no sexual experience with women until he marries. If we add the fact that the average Arab does not marry until his middle or even late twenties … we find that usually years pass between sexual maturation and the beginning of licit heterosexual activity.
Homosexuality, although condemned in Muslim law, is a frequent outcome of the Islamic sexual system. As shown above, historically it occurred during periods of raiding and conquest, but it is also common in times of peace. Moreover, in certain parts of the Muslim world, as in the Egyptian Siwa Oasis, it is quite openly practiced “with the shaykhs and the well-to-do men lending their sons to each other.” Reconciling behavior strongly condemned by religious stricture with a common social practice is accomplished by some deft rationalization on the part of many Muslims. Patai points out that among Arabs and Turks homosexuality is justified as an expression of power. The “active homosexual act is considered as an assertion of one’s aggressive masculine superiority, while the acceptance of the role of the passive homosexual is considered extremely degrading and shameful because it casts the man or youth into a submissive, feminine role.”
Glazov emphasizes the utilization of the homosexual act as an expression of the domination of the strong over the weak. Older and stronger unmarried males seek their sexual outlet in “victimizing younger males just the way they were victimized.”
Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.
In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
This cycle of frustration, humiliation and rage has consequences for all members of society. It is an important factor in the abusive child rearing practices detailed above. It is also a cause of violence against, and humiliation of, Muslim women. Patai describes the underlying violence toward women which is always present just beneath the surface of Arab society:
Thus sex is both prohibited, and therefore feared, and desired, and therefore sought after. Both emotions are experienced with considerable intensity, which can be taken as an indication of the intensity of the childhood repression of the sexual interest. After adolescence this repression creates a strong sense of frustration. If, however, the social controls break down, or are eliminated, the repressed aggression engendered by the frustrated sex drive breaks through to the surface and seeks its expression in sexual as well as other aggression. … In an environment where he is unknown, the individual feels that the old taboos with their built-in threat of punishment can be infringed with impunity. A third type of occasion … is at an accidental encounter between a man … and a woman in a place where there are no witnesses. In such a situation, and especially if the woman is not a member of the ingroup, or is a member of a hostile group, her sexual abuse is quite likely to occur.
Glazov emphasizes the denial that surrounds the issue of violence against women and the resulting poisoning of the relations between the sexes:
There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.
In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence. A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture. They threaten the hyper-masculine order.
Another consequence of this syndrome is that women are required to devalue their own worth and deny their own sexuality. Women are viewed as instruments of the devil; lures placed to tempt and deceive Muslim men. Thus from an early age women are required to accept their moral and social inferiority. “Within a few months after weaning, the female infant is well on the way to internalizing the role she will play in life as a woman: a subordinate, a person of little importance, destined to remain most of her life in a servile position in relation to the menfolk who will dominate her life: her father, brothers, husband, sons.” She is also required to acknowledge that only males are allowed sexual privileges. She must accept polygamy and the ease of divorce, as her forbears were required to meekly accept sexual slavery. “Thus, a man does not have to invest in one woman. The concept of "the couple" is shattered; the individual woman is seen as useless and expendable.”
Glazov points to the prevalence of female circumcision in many parts of the Muslim world as being one additional probable consequence of the deep seated misogyny rooted in Islamic culture.
To add to this tragedy: whenever the genital mutilation holocaust is raised, the first chorus that comes from the Muslim community is that this genocide is not rooted in Islam and predates Islam.
Well then, why are Muslim girls this genocide's greatest victims? And why do so many Muslims spend more of their time and energy arguing that female genital mutilation is non-Islamic than campaigning to stop this “un-Islamic” barbaric practise from violating their women and defaming their religion? The answer is simple: female genital mutilation produces the oxygen that Islamic fundamentalism needs to breathe. It helps militant Islam keep intact the foundation on which its life depends: the subjugation and enslavement of women under a rigid system of gender apartheid.
Copied and pasted from "Islamic Expansion and Decline"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)