The following essay by Anne Marie Waters is a challenge to British feminists to debate her on the issue of Islamic misogyny. It was published earlier at Breitbart and the author’s website in a slightly different form.
Feminists Need to Know — Islam Kills Women
by Anne Marie Waters
I used to be a feminist, but I gave it up so I could speak out for women’s rights. Even before the “intersectional”, “how many genders are there?” lunacy took over, feminism was filled to bursting with types who think men are misogynists who all secretly want to rape us (this despite the fact that men are among the greatest supporters of women’s rights) and a happily married mother is some kind of traitor.
The kind of people, in other words, who nobody in their right mind could possibly get along with.
While I will always speak out for women to maintain our just civil rights, I do want Sharia Watch to spend significantly more time on freedom of speech (we will run an autumn campaign ‘Islam Kills Free Speech’) and the impact of Islam on children, but before I do, I intend to spend the summer doing something very important — informing the ludicrous feminists of today of something they desperately need to know: Islam Kills Women.
Islam Kills Women is a joint effort between Sharia Watch UK and Examine-Islam.org It aims to do one thing and one thing only: show the world just why it is that women are treated so utterly appallingly in every Muslim society on earth.
As well as producing articles from various writers and information packs and videos, I will challenge every feminist organisation in Britain to debate me, so that they can attempt to prove me wrong. When they realise that they cannot do this, I invite them to stand alongside me at the culmination of this campaign — a protest rally to be held outside Parliament on August 20th.
Islam kills women not only physically — although of course it does — but it kills the spirit of far greater numbers. From birth, girls are degraded and humiliated, most often by their own mothers. These girls accept their status and then pass it on to their own daughters in an endless cycle of what can only be described as evil.
Often forced into marriage, forced to live with domestic violence, and enslaved under a system of ‘honour’, life can be sheer misery for girls unfortunate enough to have been born into Islam. To top it off, many will have their clitorises cut off so that sex will be painful and they can suffer the further humiliation of incontinence and other side-effects.
All of this, but all of it, is maintained and sustained and justified by Islam. That is a matter of fact. I will prove it right now.
One of the most contentious issues is female genital mutilation (FGM), so let me start there. FGM is sanctioned by Islam. Fact. There are several hadiths which justify it. You can read these here, but I shall recount just one which should be enough to ring a few bells: “Abu al-Malih ibn Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: ‘Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.’” Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.
While it is true that some Islamic “scholars” have condemned FGM, many others promote it and use hadiths to do so. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, pushed for FGM when it took over Egypt, and in “moderate” Indonesia, where somewhere between 80 and 100 per cent of girls suffer this mutilation, 100 per cent of women interviewed believed it to be an Islamic obligation. According to ‘Stop FGM Mid East’ the practice did not exist in Indonesia until the introduction of Islam.
Let’s move on to forced marriage. Child marriage is rife in the Muslim world, and it is not, as some suggest, simply a consequence of extreme poverty. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, for example, has endorsed it on Islamic grounds for the simple reason that Mohammed married a six year old; therefore it must be permissible.
The relevant hadith is this: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88)
Iran allows the marriage of nine-year-old girls based on these same hadiths, and recent attempts in Pakistan to prevent child marriage were stopped by the Council of Islamic Ideology who deemed it “blasphemous” and “un-Islamic”. The chairman of the council helpfully explained: “Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah.”
Stoning to death sounds just too terrible to be true. It sounds like something from pre-history that couldn’t possibly be happening today, but it is — in one kind of society only, Islamic society. It is a punishment used almost exclusively on women accused of committing adultery. I say ‘accused’ because that is all it takes; she has no defence.
Remember that under Islamic law, a woman’s word is worth half of a man’s, so if her husband accuses her, her denial is worthless and she will be found guilty on his word alone. This is brilliantly illustrated in the hard-to-watch movie ‘The Stoning of Soraya M’, a true story about the stoning of a young mother in Iran on the word of her husband only; he simply wanted rid of her. Her father and sons joined in with the stoning.
Stoning for adultery occurs under Islamic law for a reason that you may by now be able to guess: it was endorsed by Mohammed. There are several Islamic sources to back this up. I will recount just one part of Sahih Bukhari 3:50:885 which reads:
Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah’s Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death.” Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah’s Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death.
Domestic and honour violence can be banded together, as I believe they emanate from one verse of the Koran — Sura 4, verse 34, which reads: “Men have authority over women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance — [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.”
Could this verse be any clearer? Women must obey, and if they don’t, you may use violence against them. This can, and in practice does, justify all kinds of horrors against women. It is very clear that if the men in her family don’t approve of her conduct, they can beat her for it.
I have not even scratched the surface. The oppression of women in Islamic countries is by far the cruellest in the world. No other major societies treat their women in this way, and that is not an unfortunate coincidence; it is the direct result of these and many other teachings in Islamic scripture.
With all of this evidence in front of them, my challenge to British feminists is this: will you admit the truth in what I have written? And do you want this religion to have more or less influence in countries where women have fought and died for their freedom?
If, like me, you want to see a religion like this have zero influence, will you stand with me and oppose its import via mass immigration as Sharia Watch and Examine Islam intend to do on August 20th?
My guess is that you will not. You will not even respond to my requests, and you certainly won’t have the courage to debate me. You will continue to pretend that the truth is bigotry and that the lie is moral, and you will continue to deny the most pertinent truth about the treatment of women in the Middle East, Africa, and increasingly in Europe — this abhorrent treatment of women has everything to do with Islam.
Anne Marie Waters is the founder of Sharia Watch UK, a former UKIP candidate for Parliament, and one of the leaders of PEGIDA UK.
Previous posts:
Another courageous fighter for what remains of Western civilisation. May her efforts be crowned with success.
Given that there doesn’t seem to be much objection to sharia law from the feminists, but plenty of support for Marxist stuff like thesis-antithesis-synthesis, I figure that a few tips are in order for men who want to keep the feminists happy once sharia law is imposed:
1) never get married, just buy sex slaves instead (because marriage is bad, and really what’s the point if you can just have sex slaves)
2) make sure the sex slaves are always required to “dress” in the sharia-compliant topless manner (if pornography is empowering to women, well going topless all the time ought to be even better)
3) also make sure that the sex slave girls are a maximum of 14 years old (because the kids need to “discover their sexuality” or whatever the feminists say, and with no clitoris they’ll need even more time to find a way to get creative somehow)
I think that just about covers it. Seems like theres something else I’m missing here but I’m sure the feminists out there can help me point out more ways of achieving Hegelian dialectical synthesis. Anyway, that ought to be enough to keep the feminists happy under sharia.
wow. A hatchet job for the sake of…I’m not sure what. Marx hated Hegel’s ideas, btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy
and the old T–>A–>–>S isn’t much in favor anymore. As that wiki points out, one has to differentiate between Western Marxism and the USSR version…
Marx was wrong but he’s still important.
As for ‘feminists’ – enh. I kept my own last name when I married the Baron but I’m not a doctrinaire feminist. I don’t even believe the much bally-hooed “income disparity” has much bearing on real life. Femmies need to get over themselves, get a real life. Until they do, they’re stuck in that Rage Gurl Ghetto of slut dress and behavior. Infinitely tedious they are.
I’m an old-style feminist just wanting equal rights and opportunities for men and women, but ok with the fact that on average men and women will make different career decisions and have some income disparity. I really wish the term hadn’t been taken over by the people you describe.
Meanwhile true misogynistic horror is happening right in our societies and not enough true old-style feminists are speaking up.
The last year I worked full time I made more money than my husband. Until I found out that my 2nd son was in the gutter at school. I quit my job and fired the nanny. My husband was a highly paid engineer. I was paid more.
My son’s girlfriend is a graduate of USNA with a major in economics. She then served 6 years in the Navy. She got married and had a child. Then another one. Guess what she does today? She is a dental hygienist because she can make her own hours and care for her children.
I have a long time childhood friend that was the head nurse on a surgical word at Long Island Jewish Hospital. One of her daughters went “teen age psycho” and she quit her job. She got a job about 10 minutes down the street at a plastic surgeon’s office with no benefits so she could be within a few minutes of her daughter.
This wage disparity is a bunch of crap on the high end. The examples I have given put the lie to it. Women make different choices than men. I remember my sister in law, who also worked full time, asking me “do you think that when our husbands back their cars out of the driveway they wonder if our children have their gym clothes?”
Babs, every time you comment you give us some new aspect of your interesting life. You’re a strong woman. I doubt seriously you’d ever be a ‘feminist’…
Anyway, men worry about different things re their kids, but this is particularly true depending on how the home tasks are divided. There *are* men who’d wonder about the gym clothes if they were in charge of the gym clothes. A few are…the ones in charge of homework wonder about that – especially if the kids have left for school before they themselves back out of the driveway and head for work.
I like the story of your friend. This parallels a similar story of a neighbor…She and her husband were hoodwinked into adopting “special needs” children. These were two Alcohol-Fetal Syndrome siblings who’d endured neglect and abuse. Our neighbor, not being psych-jargon literate, thought “developmentally delayed” meant they could eventually catch up, given enough love and attention. Eventually she left a good position with the phone company and got her certification in barbering, or whatever licensure you need in order to open your own salon. Her husband used her cashed-in 401K pension to build a shop for her so she could be 15 minutes from school and stay on top of kid problems and teacher ignorance. A real momma bear, out of necessity.
The B raised our son and was a house husband/home-schooler until a wealthy person of our acquaintance insisted on paying his way for a Friends’ School attendance. That lasted through an excellent middle school curriculum…until we saw the high school literature “program”. NO classics. No men. No first-rate writers and few Americans. So we removed him and he went to a small, accredited rural school which had a good working arrangement with a local private college for extra classes. And bus service! He got Shakespeare, Milton, and Civics classes that took culture seriously. The kids at the Friends’ school were elitist, entitled leftists. Mostly atheists, though not all. They made fun of the Quaker tradition which was the foundation of the school…the kids at the rural school were truly diverse: some Asian, a few Iranians, etc., in addition to some middle class blacks. People who valued education. Some kids traveled as much as an hour each way in order to attend the school. Many kids realized the family’s financial sacrifice that went into their schooling.
There is still wage disparity, but it has shifted.
I recently retired from a corporate giant and the effort to demonstrate diversity has brought back affirmative action with a vengeance. Hiring managers fall all over themselves to create the kind of race and gender quotas they see as ideal with little attention to merit. I worked for a second line manager who proudly announced that his goal was to have 50% females in his group. One very sharp lady I worked with, who is very preggers with #4 and I hope she finally gets the daughter she so desires, was spitting mad at that policy. As she rightly pointed out, only about 15 – 20% of the engineering grads are female so why is it noble to make the workforce not represent that proportion?
The new minority, and the one discriminated against most aggressively, is the middle aged white guy. If liberals were smart (hah!) they would attack the problem at the root – education. It’s no longer about equal opportunity, everyone has that. It’s now about equal outcome, merit and hard work be damned.
My sister in law would loooooove to quit her job to stay home with the baby kids, but my brother is having a hard time finding a better paying job. Guess why? Well, one job he didn’t get and after asking around it turns out that he didn’t get hired because they “needed” to hire more women!
Yea…. The Marxist gender warfare crap is not working out really well for them. But trying to tell them this is probably pointless because I’d bet just about anything that they’ll still vote for “What difference at this point does it make?”
I’m not sure why I thought Marx retained the Hegelian stuff. Maybe I read something bad, got confused, or perhaps a Russian or someone else brought it back at some point.
The point was to show the commonality and how compatible the latest and greatest radical feminism is with Islam. I mean it could help explain the lack of objection, though I’m guessing the real reason is zero-sum class warfare (never criticize a “racial” minority ideology).
As far as I’m concerned, anyone legitimate is a women’s rights advocate, a men’s rights advocate, or an everyone’s rights advocate. These days the term feminism is probably going to bring to mind radical feminist stuff like forcing the ROTC to wear high heels, and the stuff mentioned above. I think it’s possible that the term may be eventually abandoned to the Marxists which would be good for the sake of clarity.
Wife and I have separate last names as well.
In the part of the country where we first became a couple, this is largely the norm.
In the part where we live now, it’s unusual.
Because she has more active community involvement (whereas I work online), more people know her.
I regularly get called by her last name. By now, I actually answer to it, because it takes too much explaining (I have the right ethnic look for her last name more than I do for mine).
I’m sure that the same happens to you as well, but I thought that you’d be amused to know that it also happens to men :-).
The B answers to his own last name, to my name, and to the name of my children from my first marriage when they lived with us growing up. It was too much trouble to explain…and yes, sometimes it’s very funny. So many permutations…
“the old T–>A–>–>S isn’t much in favor anymore.”. You mean its relevancy? I thought it was the same as the old problem-reaction-solution, which is very relevant and being used all the time today, and doesn’t matter what version it is.
Can’t say I like Western Marxism, either. Pol Pot and his gang learned their Marx not from the Easter Orthodoxy-haunted Russians and not from China, but from the enlightened Eurocommunists of Paris. Ecrassez l’enfame!
And, now that the Western Marxists have lost their Soviet patron, they are in the forefront of throwing the door open to Islamic migration, without checking for terrorists.
The Western Marxists think they’re importing a new batch of cannon fodder when they’re importing the very people who’ll slit their throats at the drop of a hat.
You are a feminist in the mold of Phyllis Chesler.
A real one.
The type of feminist that (most) Western men do NOT have a problem with.
I was almost a feminist, but I didn’t have the energy for the anger. I preferred to apply my energy to getting on in my chosen field of endeavour–not that I got very far, but no excuses for that. By the time I got to university, ‘women’s rights’ groups had become dominated by lesbians campaigning for abortion on demand.
I guess I’m old enough that when I first started out, feminists were women I could 100% agree with.
I haven’t changed. The people using the label “feminist” have changed.
I continue to support equal opportunity for all.
But not equal outcomes.
Over the years, that has changed me from a progressive left-wing thinker to a reactionary right-wing one in others’ appreciation.
But my underlying views haven’t changed!
I would like to add something to what this lady already said, and I wish she could read my post and add a few more data to her repertoire, just in case…
1. Women have no right to reject [redacted] sexual exploitation: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” Koran, 2:223. This verse is a direct response from Allah to someone who told mohammed about his wife’s reluctance [redacted].
2. Women are worth half a man. So if a man kills a woman for no reason, still man cannot be punished unless murdered woman’s family (owner?!) pays half the value of the man.
3.
4. Women are not worth half a man when it comes to important issues, i.e. a women’s testimony for major crimes such as murder is not valid.
Well, that’s what I can remember at the moment. But dear readers of GoV already know a lot more still untold.
ADMIN NOTE: This is Too Much Information – TMI – for a website like ours. We all know the sexual obsessions of Islam, but to see them spelled out here is stomach-turning. That information can be gotten from Islamic sites…but not here.
Oops! Sorry for that. Please feel free to delete the entire post if it should not be here.
Your point is well taken. However, if I may relate a story about a colleague of mine who I was working with last night, as it happens. She told me directly last night (I was quite surprised) that I had opened her eyes to what is happening, and although I had sent her several links from GoV etc in the past, it was a link to a site where a particular Islamic horror story had been published (and it was indeed horrific) that acted as a psychological ‘tipping point’ for that individual. So there is a place, perhaps, for passing along such information.
But of course, that is not to say that such explicit and horrific information should be made available here at GoV. On a daily basis or even at all. I believe that your role as a source of info for younger people is important, vitally so, and that role should be preserved and protected.
And personally I have information overflow when it comes to that sort of thing. Those of us who have been at this for some time have that info. on board already, and there’s no need to see such horrors here at GoV, although there may be exceptional situations that arise which would need to be treated differently.
I have spent some time talking with a young female relative about what to watch out for in life, if I may put it in such general terms. And it is very difficult to know just how far to go. How much information do you pass on? What can you say, and what would be better left unsaid, etc?
I think this is actually one of the problems with the so-called ‘religion of peace’ – certain aspects of it are so outrageously horrific that it’s difficult to know what to say or do about that. One could treat this as a legal matter, arguing for the right to freedom to change one’s religion, one could perhaps argue for the rights of females and religions minorities, and to my mind those arguments would be telling. (And time consuming to prepare, and psychologically and perhaps financially draining etc.) But still, there is the reality of the situation, for so many people, all over the world. The awful, horrific, reality.
What a nightmare we are all in, really. What sort of world are the younger generation going to have to live in? More and more people are talking to me about this, I have to say.
Thank you for sharing your experience, Nick. It is indeed important to know how much information one must pass on or where to post. Unfortunately the lefty websites, MSM and others censor anything that may direct the readers to further study material. One of the places I found suitable for providing info to younger generations is “game” forums, the moderators do not bother and I noticed sometimes they even welcome more debate on their forums for the excitement of it. BTW I have no idea how many actually click my links, but that’s the most I could do up to now.
I don’t think Germaine Greer will be lending much assistance.
A quote from her from just last Monday -“We are all descended from people who were refugees. We ought to understand the mindset and we ought to understand the suffering. We’ve got to not be afraid. We’ve got to be patient. We have got to be accessible. We’ve got to listen. I think it’s quite wrong to suggest that a sizeable proportion of Muslims in England are terrorists.”
“It doesn’t take very many terrorists to perform an atrocity and to then characterise a whole huge group of people, most of whom are performing essential work in these economies, to criminalise them because of this element in their population is foolish. It’s foolhardy, it’s dangerous, it’s stupid. Let’s not do it.” (ABC Australia’s Q & A programme, 11 April, 2016).
I guess the only enemy she recognises is the white Christian male.
Or the white Jewish male. Or the [civilized] male of any type.
Let’s see…. My paternal grandparents moved from England to the U.S. because Grandpa had a “gypsy wanderlust.” Somehow it evaporated when he reached Florida, and Grandma was stuck with it. Being a gardener, she bloomed where she was planted.
Maternal grandfather’s parents may have been economic “refugees”; I can’t get any information now and couldn’t when Grandpa was alive. But they lived in South Tyrol/northern Italy near Bolzano and left in the first decade of the 1900s. My guess is that either the mining or the farming went belly-up.
Maternal grandmother’s family goes back to Colonial America. Many colonists were PAID to emigrate, so it would be difficult to classify them as “refugees.” The original Ur-ancestor, as researched by my aunt (mother’s sister), may have hit the East Coast in 1765.
“We are all…refugees”? And I used to think that Germaine Greer had a legitimate analysis of Things Political. Her brain must have turned to mush.
Of the ancestors whose provenance I know, most were in reality refugees.
There is one whose life I know in detail, because he wrote it down before he died in the 1940s. He is one of the Jewish ones.
The interesting thing is that he was quite religious. He came around age 40, which is a bit on the later end for immigrants – but he had somehow figured that something would go wrong in Europe, and this, many years before anyone had heard of Hitler as anything but a painter. Needless to say, he was right.
Although he wasn’t very successful financially, he made serious efforts to integrate. By the time he died, he was able to write passable English.
But he said a funny thing. He said that in coming to North America, he figured that his children would lose religion, but that it was better that than that they should die. All of them lived old enough to have children of their own. All but one were lost to religion.
All his children integrated reasonably successfully.
He made choices. He lived with the results. Doubtless, he was discriminated against, but it was nonetheless WAY better than back “home”. I doubt that he regretted his choices, seeing what happened in Europe after.
Most immigrants do the same.
For some reason, *some* groups of immigrants have difficulty in doing this.
Another consideration is the European tradition of leaving 100% of the family wealth to the oldest son. This was an impetus for many younger siblings to come to the US.
Especially did they come to Virginia and were given huge land grants by the King.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony was a religious undertaking by the Puritans. Their strictures suited the weather.
The Virginia Colony was a commercial undertaking; the religion was C of E, though it gradually morphed into the Commonwealth’s official version: the Church of Virginia, of which many of the founders were members despite their private preference for deism.
BTW, Jefferson created his own version of the New Testament, here:
The Jefferson Bible – The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
And here’s the wiki on his effort:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
I know a number of agnostics/atheists who find Jefferson’s work useful for their own needs. It’s a fine book. Though I prefer the post-Resurrection codified version myself, TJ’s work is used by Unitarians and others who don’t like codified scripture.
Now wouldn’t it be interesting if an Islamic Thomas Jefferson did a cut-and-paste job as described in that wiki? His life expectancy would be shorter than that of a butterfly, but it would be a version many Westerners would find compatible with their own outlook on life…
All that would make a lot more sense if the refugees were actual refugees. I mean, does nobody ever bother to question any such claims? If not then I guess we can just get away with telling everyone that all those military age males are really 12 year old boys.
“All that would make a lot more sense if the refugees were actual refugees.”
I disagree.
People may be perfectly legitimate refugees, fleeing real, tangible persecution, and their presence may still be harmful to the US.
For instance, gypsies were persecuted and killed in Nazi Germany, but I don’t want them in the US, and would oppose their immigration here, even if they were being put into concentration camps. The reason is that the gypsies are thieves and live by criminal enterprises and picking pockets.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/roma-i-e-gypsy-families-train-kiddies-in-pickpocket-skills
You have to look out for the interests of your own country first. The only criterion for immigration should be the good of the host country, not the need of the potential immigrant.
There is a significant Gypsy population in the area of Sacramento, California. And as a result of that the Police have a special department specifically assigned to combating Gypsy crime. I saw a segment on a new show and they even have a detective who speaks Roma. They do a lot of fraud in construction, like targeting elders and using watered down paint. I remember one instance where they did a slurry seal that washed off in the first rain.
I didn’t say it would make perfect sense, just more sense. I actually agree with you.
Ms Greer is less than popular among aircraft buffs. She lives in the village of Duxford, south of Cambridge, near the airfield of the same name. This was constructed for the RAF in 1918, hosted the first Spitfire squadron in ’38, played a major role in the Battle of Britain, and was subsequently the home of the USAAF’s 78th Fighter Group.
It has been owned by the Imperial War Museum since the 1970s, and is the UK’s largest aviation museum, incorporating the American Air Museum, opened by George W Bush in 2002. Apart from routine civilian operation of small aircraft, it hosts several organisations restoring and flying vintage ‘planes. The biggest of these, “The Fighter Collection”, puts on the largest flying display of “warbirds” outside the US, “Flying Legends”, each July. There are 3-4 other airshows annually.
Ms Greer complains about these activities, which occupy a few days each year. This is like an acquaintance of mine living in Notting Hill, who grouses about the annual Carnival- it was there first, and if you don’t like it, you shouldn’t have moved there.
Your last sentence is very conservative, you know, Mark. Do you want me to redact it for you? 😉
Perhaps Ms Greer would like to move next to one of the pre-existing chicken houses around here. She will get a similar response.
Greer is a pointless individual if ever there was one. I remember years ago when James Kelman won the Booker, she had a go about him writing in his own language, & criticized his material etc. As if she knew the first thing about putting on a boiler suit & stripping down engines all day. When’s the last time she ever did a day’s work like?
Another who did the same thing was Robert Harris, the author – and surprisingly it was Will Self who cut him down to size.
Btw has anyone ever read The Restraint of Beasts? Awesome book, and if you can get the audio version, do have a go at it.
I find subject to bring up over and over, lest people forget what Islam truly brings to the table.
A very compelling movie, and one I suggest often for anyone who believes the ROP/MC [waste material] that the left puts forth about Islam is
“The Stoning of Soroya M”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1277737/
It’s on Netflix, if you have such.
The Stoning of Soraya is only against the Minority of Extremists, not Muslims in general. As such, it’s of ambiguous value to the counter-jihad’s main function (um, waking up the West to the actual, as opposed to fantasy-based, nature of Islam).
What is noteworthy is the contrast between Christianity and Islam in the treatment of women. The Christian is exhorted to treat his wife as the weaker vessel (needing more care, attention and support that a man would) lest your prayers be hindered. Mahomet regarded women as sexual playthings with a worth less than a camel.
[Redacted lengthy proselytizing]
I see feminism as a justifiable revolt against [the] continued put down of women. What I feel is lacking these days is good old-fashioned gentlemanliness that cherishes the women and regards her as a complementary (or even complimentary) equal. When God created us He gave man the ability to perform certain tasks an women the ability to perform others (both can change diapers BTW, I can and have). You put both together [redacted] and you find the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Gents, let’s treat women [well] even if they don’t say thank you. At the very least we will be setting a fine example for the Muslims among us. Ladies, reach out to the poor women who a bound up in sack cloth. They [may] long for someone to help set them free.
Please, I’ve asked before: no preaching…Thanks
What else has the strength and character to stand against the institutionalized evil that Islam is? Humanism has failed us. In fact, it may have opened the door to Islam in its contention that this is all there is. BTW, who do you think went toe-to-toe with the Pharisees over the place of a woman in society. Prior to Jesus, women were property and could be divorced, maligned, abused and mistreated at will without repercussion or recourse. Jesus restored women to their rightful place as equals with men. That sound a lot better to me than what the Muslims are preaching.
No, the leftist/socialists – many of them practicing Christians – have failed us. Liberation theology, a leftist enterprise, has captured the clergy in the ranks. What they need is some basic economic theory congruent with their creed. But instead they got Marx.
Look at the many “sanctuary” churches, or that meddler Pope Francis. And please, please, please don’t give me a denominational homily about how your version of Christianity doesn’t make those mistakes. They are universal and include all churches – as you well know that belief in imperfection is a foundation stone for practicing Christians. The ones who don’t admit it end up caught with their hand in the till or their liaison with the choir director gets exposed. Or as one Lutheran priest said sadly, “seems like it’s always either Punch or Judy” – booze or women.
Geert Wilders is an atheist and he stands strong against Islam. Just to name one.
GoV is not the appropriate forum for religious screeds. That’s not in our mission statement, nor was it ever our intention to veer that way. It simply causes fights. I don’t want to be preached at. Please stop.
Yes, even as an atheist I love much of what Jesus said and did. Mohammed, not so much…
Back in my early 20’s I remember reading a book called The Story Of O. It was about how someone could debase a female in every different way. In addition, I read a National Geographic article about FGM. I was absolutely horrified.
It is sad how numb I have become to these practices. And, how numb the major population that calls themselves feminist are.
This is an atrocity that needs to be fought against and the western world is mostly silent.
Why is it that I was so alarmed by what I read 40 years ago and most people when it is placed in their faces don’t seem to mind?
Indeed. It was and still is horrifying to consider the terror a young girl feels when this is perpetrated upon her by women *including her mother* and when she then faces the risk of internal infection.
Not all girls survive the mutilation; it’s done awake and without sanitary instruments. A true torture.
Yet some would have us believe that “it’s only a tribal belief”! When it’s Islam that justifies, nay–requires!–this barbarism.
It is very hard (in life, the universe and everything) to desist from exploiting the exploitable. It takes a very strong man to treat a weaker being with respect, Islam produces very weak men who, whilst they may be physically strong, are viscous and relentless in their desire to exploit and to self gratify, even to the extent of destroying their golden geese.
How Islam has managed to last for 1400 years I know not, it should have disappeared, drowned in its own fecal mess.
“How Islam has managed to last for 1400 years I know not”
That’s a very interesting question.
In my opinion, Islam is an almost perfect parasite. It’s only mission is to perpetuate and extend itself into non-Islamic host societies. In pursuit of that objective, Islam demands the genetic deterioration of Muslims through interbreeding, so the chances of a rational rejection of Islam is minimal. Islam also demolishes science, free expression, and artistic endeavors: any enterprise which might develop an independent point of view.
Islam is very Darwinian: it expands into the territories of weaker societies, and immediately demolishes any potential competition.
What happens to Muslims after the territory is secured is of little concern to Islam. Property rights are unrecognized, as is individual freedom, so you have the division of any Islamic territory into extremely rich, powerful individuals, and the rest scrabbling for existence. But, the individuals must be extremely aggressive to survive, and can overwhelm the soft inhabitants of a peaceful country if allowed to enter.
Islam will continue to expand unless active measures are taken to stop it. This does not require attacking Muslim countries or killing Muslims unless they are trying to breach the borders. It simply requires the strength to set and enforce borders and an immigration ban on all Muslims, except accredited diplomats who will be required to leave on the expiration of their commissions.
Like the Goa’uld?
Islam is also a metastatic cancer. Some may fallaciously conclude that Islam’s perniciousness is relatively static because they see the fact that Islam has not conquered the planet (a fallacious argument similar to “Muslims can’t be as bad as you say they are, or they would all be exploding all over the place all the time”); but other factors account for this failure of Mohammedans to fulfill their perennial desideratum — such as, for example, the fact that over the centuries people have resisted the supremacist expansion of Islamic Lebensraum; as well as Islam’s internal corruption (including demonic depravity, laziness, Oriental backwardness, and obsessive-compulsive fanaticism) and internecine voracity. The principle should hold, however: Just because Muslims haven’t conquered the planet, doesn’t mean they don’t want to; doesn’t mean they won’t, and can’t, cause untold mayhem & misery merely in trying; and doesn’t mean they won’t be getting horrifically worse in the coming decades of this 21st century in the pursuit of this Mohammedan script of theirs (which we could minimize if we rounded all Muslims up and deported them — but Heaven forbid we try to minimize it in a way best comported to the actual nature of the phenomenon…).
The only way it could drown in its own feces is if it runs out of prey. Even then it won’t completely die since isolated groups of Muslims will still scrabble for stuff and prey on each other.
I think the worst it can really do to a civilization is reduce everyone to living almost like savage cave people, but they don’t totally die out and they keep clinging to Islam.
Unfortunately if they have anyone they can raid and steal stuff from, or any resource to trade (like oil) then they may appear more successful than they actually are even though whatever they have is all external input. But once the external supply of “stuff” runs out then they’re back to the Stone Age.
So the reason they don’t die out is the same reason head hunters and cannibals don’t die out (unless killed by outsiders or forced to assimilate using totalitarian tactics). I mean, people living like animals can survive for the same reason animals living like animals can survive.
But Islam is worse than natural savagery because it takes all the predatory greed and hatred, organizes it, and directs it toward preying on outsiders.
I have always used the term “Feminazi” to describe self styled feminists and until I have good reason to desist, I will continue to do so. The sort of people with whom Ann Marie wishes to debate are demonstrably irrational and will regard anyone who questions their belief as essentially “bad.” Any debate will, therefore, take place in a hostile environment and will involve a lot of name calling and abuse from those who represent the sisterhood.
I think Ann Marie should carry on with what she does so well and avoid debating far left feminazis like the plague.
Incidentally, when Greer’s “The Female Euneuch” was first published. I recall a comment on the sleeve note from the author in support of universal communism or words to that effect.
I would like to think that Greer has outgrown such 60’s nonsense but I won’t hold my breath.
“I think Ann Marie should carry on with what she does so well and avoid debating far left feminazis like the plague.”
I disagree.
There would be nothing better than a debate, even if the feminist side engaged in histrionics.
But, there will be no debate because the leftists are now in positions of authority and will never engage in any activity to threaten their standing. They will employ their usual tactics of suppressing any media exposure or engagement of different ideas.
The only reason there is so much knowledge of the real situation is that the internet allows people to get the facts, if they are inclined. That is the reason the governments and leftists are constantly trying to regulate internet providers with Trojan horse issues such as “fairness doctrine”.
Avoiding the debate with the far left feminazis is part of the problem, the same way that avoiding debate with the “tiny minority of extremists” is a problem in Islam.
Not exactly the same thing because we know the “tiny minority of extremists” in Islam isn’t really a tiny minority. Unfortunately I’m afraid that the same thing applies to the far left feminazis. I don’t think there are that many, but there are more than people think because they tend to get hired at universities where they can influence impressionable clueless students.
But the point is, I don’t think we should be buying the “tiny minority of extremists” argument as an excuse to ignore anything.
Sorry vicious (but they tend to be thick as well).
Modern feminism seems to be adulterated by extreme left wing cultural Marxism. They mostly suffer from Doublethink. Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. A modern feminist believes………………
Freedom from (usually male, although in reality fellow females can also be guilty of this) “Male” domination and abuse.
But …. when you raise the thorny question of women in Islam, you get the reply, that it is the freedom of the women to wear the burkah if they like. Well, what if they don’t like? They usually get a punching.
What about FGM, you ask, is it the 8 year old girls freedom also to be mutilated in such a horrible fashion? The reply …..is its their culture and you are a racist.
What about honour killlings? reply, They are very few and the media makes too much of them. And by criticizing Islam, you have proved to be a racist and an Islamophobe, and a member of the uneducated and illiterate classes. Sigh. If someone has a mind infected with Doublethink, no reasoned argument will ever make them think.
The priorities are the reverse of that.
Leftists and revolutionaries have the primary objective of destroying the present society. The issue itself is simply a stalking horse.
For instance, leftists feminists are simply Marxists, who really care not at all about women, but use the issue as rallying points for deconstruction of present social institutions. Similarly, the Black Lives Matter movement has the objective of destroying the present society, instituting a tribal hierarchy. The lives of individual blacks matters not at all to them.
So, winning a debate will never change the mind of a committed leftist, as you pointed out.
But, what debate does do is rally the people who are reasonable, but don’t realize the dire state of affairs. The present very large news providers, such as the major TV networks and the New York Times, largely ignore the real underlying reality, because 1) their owners are invested in maintaining the cover narrative; and 2) they have huge income flows which are highly susceptible to regulatory roadblocks. They follow the path of least resistance by maintaining their good relations with the commissars of regulation by jettisoning any real commitments to independent inquiry.
The number of honour killings, mutilations and other cruel behaviours has been decreased in primitive societies a little bit during the last century, it’s true. But it’s interesting to point out that it was not the result of voluntary cultural advances. Western organisations and those locals who were trained by Western academies have had the greatest impact.
As someone who lives in one of these third world countries, I can clearly see how savage clerics of islam try to restore the original form of acute barbarianism. Those feminists seem to be living in a world of upside-down reasoning with no time to read some local newspapers.
Many years ago I met an American woman who had worked in Saudi Arabia who told me an appalling story I still struggle to comprehend. One day she saw a mother with her toddler who was fussing and she squatted down in public and rubbed his tiny penis to calm him down.
This is common throughout Asia, ‘baby massage’ both male and female works (but it is not generally accepted in the West). As I understand it it releases serotonins and thus calms fractious babies.
Do this in the wrong place and you will be explaining to a Judge however.
Might sound innocent, but this may in fact condition people to behave a certain way any time they get anxious. This may actually partly help to explain the “sexual emergency” reaction of raping a child. Regardless of the purpose, I’d still throw it into the sexual abuse category.
Bonobos (primates) have the same anxiety reduction reaction which is why they’re having sex with each other all the time.
Another conditioned anxiety reduction response is pathological lying. Most people think this just means that someone lies all the time, but that’s not what it means. Pathological lying is where something lies specifically because it makes them less anxious. There may be absolutely no rational purpose for the lie, but if anxious they will lie about something, anything, just because lying makes them feel better. For example, someone once lied to me about their eye color. It was a pointless obvious lie, but they were anxious and it reduced their anxiety. Unfortunately this reaction will also make life more difficult for them.
Do you mean Asia including China, Japan etc, or just the Middle East?
Future white European girls and women will be wearing burqas, will be married at age 13 or under, will be slaves to husband and family, will bear 8 t0 10 children each, will have no freedom, will be beaten by husbands, will be stoned to death for adultry. Future Europe is islamic europe. Europe will be third world poor continent. After recent fall of Europe to muslims, soon European countries will become islamic sharia ruled countries. Evil Angela Merkel has deliberately planned the fall of europe in secret collaboration wily thug Erdogan. White europeans will be converted to Islam, those who resist will be beheaded, many will escape as refugees to Eeastern and southern european countries, and to Russia.
This is real fate of future europe- the european civilization will soon be extinct.
“By their fruits shall you know them.” I can’t remember where I learned that quote although it might be from the bible. This is why I abhor Islam, although if I met one I would not abhor the person. However, the things they do to each other and to their enemies is simply abhorrent.
It is indeed from the Bible. And what happens in Islamic countries is a good indicator of what Islam is really like, it seems to me.
Might I suggest checking out the USCIRF webiste & reading the chapters on Islamic countries in their annual reports. There you will find a good source of info. on the fruits of Islam. (Several books I have read use the USCIRF reports as references.)
Thank you GoV for finding and running that stoning picture. Without being gory or gross, it is a liberal-idiot killer. There is no rebuttal. All argument about Islam stops with that picture.
I have put it in my wallet for the next time I meet some progressive airhead telling me to respect all religions and love all men. When I hear this garbage, I will just hold out the photo, look the guy in the eye and politely ask, “Do you honestly believe this culture is equal to ours?”
That picture is a fabrication from a very old movie re-enacting a stoning, or so I’ve been led to believe.
There are plenty of more recent authentic pictures that could and should be used, such as the one from about a month ago where four women were stoned to death for adultery on the orders of what is laughably called the judicial system of ISIL (or ISIS, whatever it’s called). The only pictures I’ve seen of this atrocity were so heavily pixelated that what was portrayed was a meaningless mess.
Who told you it was a fake? Any sources? I’d rather use the genuine article if this is not it.
If Islam won and the entire world became Dar al-Islam, how long would this new caliphate survive?…or are there critical societal defects that would bring down this culture? It has lasted a long time. Is this because Dar al-Harb is suckling it in some way?
Has it ever thrived by itself without a parasitic transfusion occassionally from the host?
Who were the creative people in Andalusia?
Why did the caliphate fall so readily in WWI?
Why did Ataturk succeed? Could another one succeed?
Don’t modern societies need trust? especially for all kinds of contractual affairs? and financial? and some mutual affection amongst citizens? Is this possible when 1/2 of the population is treated poorly?
Has Islam every managed a bureacracy successfully?
Can it run a judicial system?…with complex financial torts to manage?
Maybe if Isis actually has to make payrolls and fix sewers and roads and run a school system, and legislative system….blah blah….maybe it will finally go away in disgust of itself?
I’ll try to answer about Ataturk…
Turkey in WWI was pretty much collapsing, the Ottoman Sultan was in Istambul, almost imprisoned by the Allied Forces, and had already surrendered, so when he mounted his government in Ankara he needed to distance himself from the Sultanate and Caliphate…
Noticing how the Western Model for organizing the state was intrinsically stronger and allowed for more progress, he sought to westernize Turkey in order to recover her strenght. and it worked.
After that the Turks realized (at least for a while) that they were better off being secular and semi-western, the fact that during the 20th century the Military had the habit of launching coups against governments that were anti-USA (Cold War and stuff) also helped Turkey become closer to being a western country… then Erdogan and his AKP party came over, promised to enhance the secular democracy, and then ruined it all
Now could another one succeed? probably, but it would require circumstances similar to Turkey’s, the fact that the model that failed in the Arab Nations and that was mostly brought down in the so-called arab spring was a nationalistic authoritarian semi-westernized model means that it’s most likely that they will move towards a more traditionalist form (the Islamic State may be an early version of it), Ataturk left a semi-westernized Turkey because the traditional model had failed to withstand the onslaught of WWI…
A great but truly depressing post. At the start of mutti Merkel’s instigation of the ongoing illegal immigration crisis in Europe one incident stands out most in my mind. It was the picture of a young German woman (post the dreadful NYE mass assaults and rapes in Cologne and other sites) proudly displaying a sign to the effect that she would gladly swap one racist for a hundred immigrants. A disgrace to her gender, her nation and her family and yet public reaction was ZERO.
Whilst in the West we are navel gazing, discussing gender fluidity ( 32 choices at the last count I believe) you are shouted down if, as was one emminent biologist who dared to point out that if you are born with a penis you are MALE and if you are born with a vagina you are FEMALE. You then combine this insanity with inviting third world illiterates into your countries who openly state that women are lesser citizens than men, who they may rape at will, divorce at will, stone to death at will, and if you happen to be gay you will be thrown to death of a tall building! The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum!
What is a feminist?
And what became of the wives of the Jacobins? (France 1789)
Yes! Jacobins have no wives, no ecclesial notions, no justice. Just paranoia and bloodshed. Hopeless.
Who are the women of the contemporary Jacobins? Feminist? Oui?
What is the sport of modern Jacobins? Fornicate, adultery, paganism involving a monologue with a Vagina.? comme ci comme ca?
What will become of the women of the modern day Jacobins when they start this monologue with their, “ahem”?
Well we know history repeats itself and Twain said it often rhymes.
Jacobin motto: “Live free or DIE”.
IS/Muslim Brotherhood motto:…..DYING in the way of god is our highest hope…..someone have a death wish?