Showing posts with label muslim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslim. Show all posts

Tuesday, 19 January 2016

Unli sex: the foundation of Islam

burqah

Women wearing the burqa. This garment is not mentioned anywhere in the Qu’ran yet is imposed as a part of Idslamic tradition.

Unlimited sex after death: the foundation of Islam.

The basis of the patriarchy is nowhere better seen today than in Islam. This is not because this cult is intrinsically worse than the other Abrahamic ones, but largely because while the most rabid excesses of the others have become marginalised, in Islam the most obnoxious form is mainstream today.

This is a very dangerous situation because the aim of this form, Salafism, sometimes called ‘Wahabbism’, is the destruction of all civilisation other than the Islamic and the return of the world to the conditions that obtained in the Caliphate a thousand years ago. To this end Islamic forces are rampaging across the globe killing, raping and razing to the ground everything that they find.

Yet we know that people are essentially altruistic. So how is it possible for a cult to motivate them to such focussed evil as it does?

houris-virgins

This is what really motivates the jihadist — the promise of a Hugh Hefner-like afterlife, his every sexual urge attended to by perpetual virgins. Frankly he’d be better off blowing a wad in Pattaya

The answer is in the control of sex.

When we researched Why Men Made God we spent a lot of time looking at extant and recently recorded matriarchies. We were struck by how peaceable they were and how calm and pleasant the men were. In these matriarchies the supply of sex is determined by women. Yet it appears that there is enough to satisfy the men and very little friction takes place between them, if any. This compares well to study of bonobos, Pan paniscus, our closest relatives, who also organise in matriarchal groups. The males are contented and non-aggressive.

This shows us the key to the patriarchy’s power. By restricting the supply of sex, it causes competition and violence between men. It can then direct this violence to its own ends — typically conquest and destruction.

To do this, the patriarchy first removed women’s control over their own sexuality and reproduction. This remains the case today. Witness how in the Christian cults, any form of birth control — other than abstinence — is condemned. Look at how the Catholic and various Evangelistic cults try to influence politicians to deny women their basic rights over their own bodies. Look at how sex, in these cults, is condemned as a pleasure. This is happening for a reason, and that reason is social control.

And if you think that is bad, it’s nothing compared to the hideous conditions imposed under Islam. In this cult, high-status men can have up to four wives. There is, generally, a slightly higher number of girl births (53% in favour of girls); but if high-status men can have four wives, this clearly means that low status men struggle to find one. Add to this the concubine system in which high-status men may keep as many female sex slaves as they like in addition to their official wives and it should be clear that for ordinary men there are very few women who might possibly be available. This has been exacerbated for certainly decades and probably far longer, by the practices of aborting female children or killing the newborns.

The inaccessibility of sex is further reinforced by the Islamic customs of making women invisible. Their faces and bodies are covered completely, so that men are denied even the pleasure of seeing them. The lengths to which Islamic ‘authorities’ go in this is ludicrous and would be laughable were it not real. For example, Salman Rushdie recounts how Islamic clerics had decided that it was unacceptable for a woman to wear stockings even under a burqah, since the sound of her thighs rubbing together would inflame men. Everything in Islam is about sex, yet nobody is getting any.

The natural consequence of this should be that men would have sex with each other, but Islam is wise to this and so sex between men is punishable by death. It happens anyway throughout the Islamic world, but the cult does its best to stamp it out, at least in public, and for those who don’t matter.

Then, Islam attempts to eliminate male pleasure in sex using a barbarous procedure called circumcision which removes over half the sensitive parts of the penis. The specific reason for this is to reduce sexual pleasure. This is also practised in Judaism and in the more backward parts of the USA, for exactly the same reasons: the reduction of male pleasure in sex. At the same time Islam in particular sanctions Female Genital Mutilation which removes all pleasure in sex from women.

Why is this happening? The answer is simple: denying men any sexual release makes them more violent. This is why boxers refrain from sexual release prior to a fight. It makes them more aggressive. Islam needs violent, aggressive men to conquer the world, so it uses the same trick.

The other side of this vile equation comes, of course, in the afterlife. There is no trickery more sickening than the religious promise of reward after death, but this is far more vile than anything Christians ever came up with.

In Islam, the only assured way to enter Heaven is by dying in jihad, which means being killed in holy war. There are conditions to this: principally, one must not be killed by a woman. Furthermore, self-sacrifice, as practised by suicide bombers, is the ultimate, highest form of such a death and guarantees instant access to Heaven. To quote the excellent film Four Lions, a suicide bomber is ‘in Heaven before his head hits the ceiling.’

muslim-heaven

After a lifetime of sexual frustration the Muslim man looks forward to his fantasy playground after death — but only if he dies killing infidels

This Heaven is not the vague place of lights and music that Christians believe in. The Muslim version is very specific. In this Heaven the newly dead warrior is welcomed be 72 girls who are indescribably more beautiful and sensuous than any human woman and who, in addition, have a virginity that is renewed every day.

These girls, these celestial purveyors of sexual pleasure, are called ‘houris’. Now it has somewhat been lost by usage, but the correct pronunciation of the English word ‘whore’ is ‘hoor’ to rhyme with moor and poor, and not with door and floor. (A hoe is what you use to weed your lettuces.) This word is derived directly from the Arabic houri, and means the same thing — a female purveyor of sexual pleasure: a sex slave. Let’s be blunt: a courtesan.

So let us look at what is happening here. In Islam, women are reduced first to property that may be bought and sold, as is the case in other patriarchal religions. They are then completely hidden, in life, from all men except their fathers or the high status men to whom they are sold. Their hymens are made the measure of their property value and a woman who comes to the marriage bed with hers not intact may be stoned to death. There is a whole industry of hymen repair in countries where this abomination is the case and in Indonesia girls who wish to go to university and many other areas of life are obliged to undergo an examination to establish that they are ‘intact’. While this abuse may make the stomach heave, apparently it is all right because it is for ‘religious reasons’.

As a result of this, and the fact that half the sensitivity of the man’s penis has been removed, the principal reward of sex — for those men for whom it actually happens at all — is the forcible removal of a woman’s virginity. This is why Female Genital Mutilation exists — so that men whose genitals have already been mutilated may enjoy the tightness of the closed vagina — until, of course, motherhood fixes that.

Remember that the real meaning of ‘virgin’ is ‘unmarried woman’ which translates roughly into ‘a woman who has not yet given birth’. Having a child of course changes a woman, but in Islamic culture, the man’s sexual delight may only come from a virgin (in the sense of never having given birth). This was why the Ottoman Emperors’ concubines, were they so careless as to fall pregnant, would usually find themselves at the bottom of the Bosphorus; their sexual quality expired, they had no further use.

In this culture, a woman is not understood to have pleasure in sex and instead it is her duty. We see something similar in attitudes in the more benighted parts of that most benighted of developed nations, the USA, where ignorance about sex is staggering.

For Muslim men the pleasure of a woman is all in the taking her virginity. Once a mother — and having acquired the power that a mother has even in a vicious patriarchy — a woman becomes valueless as a sexual partner and men will take another wife or a concubine. This is why the houris are perpetual virgins. The taking of virginity is the ultimate sexual reward in the patriarchal cults and nowhere more so than in Islam. Rape, the forcible entry into a suffering woman, replicates what they believe to be the first act of sex, the loss of female virginity. Pain and suffering on the part of the woman are seen as intrinsic to sex and without it, sex is unsatisfying.

It is also why Islam approves of child brides — the suffering of a girl child penetrated for the first time is so much greater, and her opening is so much tighter. That permanent damage may ensue is irrelevant, since the ‘prophet’ Mohammed married his last wife when she was six and raped her at nine. Just in this month a law proscribing child marriages and forced marriages (of women) was blocked in Pakistan because it was ‘blasphemous’ and ‘anti-Islamic’. We need little more proof of the hideous misogyny of this ghastly cult than this.

So we have, in Islam, a refinement of the Abrhamic patriarchal mind-control systems. While many of the techniques used, such as male genital mutilation occur in other cults, nowhere esle do we see the full panoply, the distillation of control over sex into a method that makes ordinary men into rapists and murderers. While it is true that not all Muslim men are prey to this, the poorer, less well-educated and more religious the culture they come from, the more likely they are to be. Yet even here we must be wary: as Maajid Nawaz has pointed out, in the 1990s in the UK the choice amongst young Muslim men was not whether to become a religious fundamentalist but which flavour one should immerse oneself in. Unfortunately, for these people — principally men — Islam has become a badge of ethnicity, a common shield and buckler against the persecution perpetrated by a white, southern English elite*.

The West would do well to note this. Bleeding-heart regressive ‘liberals’ in particular have to understand that there is no ‘intersection’, no common ground between defending the rights of women and Islam. You cannot say you defend women while protecting a cult that overtly, deliberately and systematically abuses them.

The Salafist form of Islam, which Saudi Arabia has been financially supporting for decades, makes ordinary men into murdering, raping monsters, while turning women into chattels. If there is one consolation in the predicament the world now finds itself in, it is that plummeting oil prices should limit the power of this most noxious of regimes to export its evil, and with some luck may even lead to its destruction.

Nevertheless, there are, today, millions of Muslim men all over the world who literally and sincerely believe that the only hope they ever might have of enjoying sexual pleasure lies in dying while killing infidels and destroying all culture but the depraved one that spawned them. The free world needs to take stock and defend itself. It is all very well to be generous; but when the wolf at the door fully intends to destroy you, it is sheer foolhardiness to welcome him in.

* It is noteworthy that Scottish Muslims appear far less likely to follow this path than English ones; I suspect this is at least in part because they make their common cause with other Scots against the English ruling elite, whereas in England this is not available.

The post Unli sex: the foundation of Islam appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Saturday, 25 July 2015

Why Islam must embrace Secularism

word-cloud-secularismThe only way for the Muslim community, insofar as it can be referred to by such a homogeneous term, to resolve the problems caused by the rise of Islamic extremism and the predictable reaction to it, is at once to accept secularism and to reject shari’aa and the primacy of Islam over other cults.

The issue is not between a Christian majority and a Muslim minority, it is between a society founded on democratic principles and reason, an arch crowned by the keystone that we can change the laws that govern us by electoral mandate, and a religious minority that refuses to accept this, and instead insists that no part of the law, as expressed through shari’aa — because it is ‘god’s’ law — can ever be altered, even in one word.

As a lifelong liberal, inclusionist, respecter and promoter of minority and other human rights, I am thoroughly weary of the complaint of those who consider that our secular democracy does not do enough for them, while themselves refusing to recognise that all religions, whatever their individual merits and demerits, within a multicultural environment, must defer to secular democracy and secular law.

To do so does not require that people give up their culture, merely that they jinnah-secularismchange it to be in line with the one they live in — something that Britain’s first waves of Muslim immigrants did, but which has now been replaced by a culture of confrontation, that leads only to extremism on both sides.

Across the Internet there are countless poison-pen articles from Islamic fundamentalists who condemn the Quilliam Foundation, but the core of their criticism is that Quilliam promotes secularism amongst Muslims. It wants the Muslim community to become like the Christian one in the UK — British, democratic and secularist first, Muslim, religious and faithful second. The Islamists who condemn it want the exact opposite, and their path can lead only to disaster.

It is only by becoming secularist and placing democracy and the rule of secular law above religion and religious ‘law’ that the Muslim community can actually integrate into the broader UK one. Failure will inevitably lead to further polarisation, extremism, and ultimately violence.

Nobody should care whether Islamic texts render the cult ‘inherently peaceful’ or ‘inherently violent’. We could make the same observation about Christianity or Judaism — that their texts are ambiguous and open to being read in diametrically-opposed ways. What we should be focusing on is how people are expressing their religion. Are they denying science? Are they denying Evolution? Are they against secular law? Are they in favour of millennia-old creeds, without a jot of relevance to the way we live today, being the basis upon which we are judged and governed — not by ‘god’ or ‘allah’ but by other humans? Do they suggest that their particular cult is somehow ‘more correct’ than any other? Do they believe that their adherence to a set of cult beliefs should afford them better treatment than others? Do they believe that their code should allow them to decide how other people should behave?

If the answer to any of these is ‘yes’, whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Baha’i, a Mormon, a Muslim or of any other religious persuasion, then your views are not compatible with secular democracy and you will have to find ways to resolve this, by changing your ideas to be more aligned with the culture you live in. It is not for secular culture to change to accommodate religious ideas, because secularism is the compromise, thrashed out in the Enlightenment, that allows people, of any religious persuasion as well as those of none, to live alongside each other in peace, and it therefore must stand above all and any of them.

If you cannot do this, then you cannot integrate, and you cannot expect the secular society you live in to protect you. It cannot respect you until you respect it, and that means accepting that secular ideas and laws come before religious ones. Secularism will guarantee you the right to worship as you will, as long as you harm no one, nor impede in any way their right to live as they choose under secular law — including those who may, notionally or otherwise, share your faith. But the bargain is strict: you must accept the primacy of secularism before it can afford its protection to you.

Religious fundamentalism, whether that be expressed by Islamists or Southern Baptists, is incompatible with secular democracy. Yet without secularism, it is inevitable that conflict and violence will occur. We see, right now, how, in America’s infamous ‘Bible Belt’ the horrible undercurrent of hatred persists. In the last month or so we have seen a toll of death that has but one cause — religious intolerance.

jefferson-secularismIn the United States this has its roots in the very psyche of the nation itself and the fundamentalist refusal of the South to defer to secularism and secular law, even after a civil war of staggering brutality, which it comprehensively lost a hundred and fifty years ago. Yet the hatred lives on, surviving and evolving, and now exports itself to other parts of the world. In the last month or so we have seen a mass murder of black people by a white Christian supremacist, and an ongoing campaign of killing against transgender people, sparked by the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to uphold all citizens’ right to marry. (This right confers but little benefit on trans people, but they pay the price for it by being more obvious than white, middle-class cis-men, and thus easier targets for those fed hatred from the pulpit.)

We should, rightly, be horrified at the depraved mindset of these Christians — yet the very same mindset is at work in Islam and no notions of ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘tolerance’ should allow us to avoid confronting it.

You cannot plead for fair and equal treatment by a secular society unless you are prepared to accept the core principles of that society, and to demonstrate this publicly. Muslims in the UK will have to follow people like Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation and reject the arguments of their enemies. They will have to not just accept, but embrace secularism and the primacy of secular law. They will have to accept that science is the proper way to understand the universe, not creation mythology. They will have to accept the fact and Theory of Evolution. They will have to accept that secular law, agreed by democratic mandates, must always hold sway over religious ‘law’. They will have to accept that their religion is but one of many and since all of them cannot be right, then they all must be regarded as equally wrong, and it is only through secularism that all can be treated as equals.

Muslims in the UK must accept that the culture they live in cannot make exceptions to its secularism for them or any other religious minority. The outlook for us all, if this cannot be achieved, is grim in the extreme.

This was written in response to a piece by Siema Iqbal in the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free.’

The post Why Islam must embrace Secularism appeared first on Rod Fleming's World.

Saturday, 1 February 2014

Muslims we Must Support: Maajid Nawaz

maajid-nawaz Maajid Nawaz

Last week, Maajid Nawaz, a United Kingdom Liberal Democratic Party parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, became the centre of an attack from the Islamic fundamentalist right wing because he stood up for free speech. This is not, in itself, unusual; fundamentalists of any religious persuasion detest free speech. Nor is the chorus of death threats raised against Nawaz in any way uncommon from Islamic fanatics. However this case is important because it illustrates a divide which we must not only recognise but decide on which side we stand.

Nawaz’ crime? After taking part in a BBC debate in which two students were seen wearing ‘Jesus and Mo’ tee-shirts, Nawaz tweeted the image, saying, "As a Muslim, I did not feel threatened by it. My God is greater than that".

For most people, that would not seem anything other than a reasonable point of view.