Islam: Men Versus Women

Islam: Men Versus Women

by SF

It’s easy to see why men like Islam: they are favored in every way. They can have arranged marriages, and up to four wives. If they tire of one of their wives, they can divorce her on the spot and get a new model. They can rape and beat their wives whenever they want. The women and children they capture in jihad become their sex slaves forever. And if they die in the course of jihad, they are whisked to the Muslim sexual paradise and receive 72 eternally virgin busty angels.

In contrast, it does not seem very attractive to be a Muslim woman. She is always owned by a man; first her father, and then her husband. Her father arranges her marriage, and can kill her if she dishonors him. She is subject to genital mutilation (which the Muslims call female circumcision). She cannot go out in public unless heavily covered, and is limited in all her interactions with men. She cannot divorce without consent of her husband. She is limited to one husband at a time, and can never marry a non-Muslim. Her testimony in court is limited, as well as her right to inheritance. If she is raped and reports it, but cannot find four Muslim male witnesses to testify in her favor, then she herself is found guilty of fornication and/or adultery, and is whipped or stoned to death!

Moreover, Muhammad, the incarnation of allah on earth, said that women have half the intelligence of a man, and that most Muslim women will end up in Muslim hell (where they can never bother their husbands, who are in Muslim paradise).

So you might wonder how any woman can be proud to be a Muslim — and why, in the supposedly free and enlightened West, Democrats, feminists, and lesbians defend Islam so strongly?

The analysis that follows is not politically correct: There is clearly such a thing as instinctual human nature. Humans are designed to be tribal; to be fiercely loyal to one’s own tribe, and to fiercely hate the enemy’s tribe. Women want to have sex with men, and to be the mothers of children. Women come to love the father of their children (and vice versa). Men won’t abuse women they are fond of (at least too badly), and women will generally put up with male abuse, as long as it is not too bad.

If all this is true, then it would seem that Islam as practiced is not as bad for women as it could be in theory.

And so, Muslim women make the best of their situation. In return for the protection a Muslim man provides her and her children, she accepts the limitations that Islam imposes on her (especially since protesting too much can get her killed). Also, there is the brainwashing factor. She is taught Islam from birth, and it is fully accepted by all the members of her tribe. Plus, she always has the consolation that as a Muslim woman, she is still superior to all non-Muslims!

We see that Muslim men really like it when a few token Muslim women stand up in public and proclaim that they fully agree with the men about how great Islam is. In a few Muslim countries these ladies even become Prime Ministers — and in America Democrat congresswomen.

(These are my conclusions after studying the matter. As always, I would be happy to learn if others think I am wrong, and what better explanations they have.)

Previous posts by SF:

2019   Jul   18   Is America Heading Towards a Second Civil War?
        26   How Do Muslims Justify Emigrating to Non-Muslim Nations?
    Aug   2   So Do You Have to Be Crazy to Convert to Islam?
        15   Islam: Can a Religion Actually Be Evil?
        18   Eid al-Adha: When Muslim Streets Run Red With (Animal) Blood
 

18 thoughts on “Islam: Men Versus Women

  1. Stockholm Syndrome. If you could be killed by the man, anything less than that will be seen by the woman as the man showing affection towards her. Also to protect her own psyche she will try to see the “good” in the man.

  2. SF – you invite challenges to your explanations but since you give no references how can any matter be settled beyond the stalemate of “my opinion against yours”? It shouldn’t be up to the reader to disprove an author’s claims but up to the author to support them.

    For instance, in another essay you start with the assertions that Islam “holds that Muslims are the only true human beings” and that “the Koran tells all Muslims to have as many children as possible, so that they can be raised as Islamic holy warriors who can conquer the world in the name of allah”. I am sure that both of these claims are untrue but I cannot prove a negative. The issue can only be settled by you providing your references which we can examine.

    Likewise I am sure that nowhere in Islam is Mohammed referred to as the “incarnation of Allah on earth”. In my understanding the Koran makes it clear that Mohammed was just a normal man (in fact associating anyone with Allah is the one unforgiveable sin – see 4:48 and 4:116 – even for his favourite prophet) but if you have found otherwise please provide the reference.

    I also suggest that you present your claims within a simplistic, absolutist framework which views all Islam everywhere as it was in Mohammed’s day or as it was until recently in ISIS. Not even in Saudi Arabia or Iran today do we see women and children captured in jihad and made sex slaves forever.

    Most of your examples in the first two paragraphs here are to be found in classical Sharia but even in those days Shariah was not the only source of law in Muslim lands. According to historians (whose names I once knew but have since forgotten, so I cannot back up this claim without digging around again, which I am reluctant to do!) there were also laws deriving from local custom and laws decreed by the ruler. And then came European law during colonisation, which has remained in place in varying degrees since decolonisation. As a result Mohammed’s Islam has been diluted patchily throughout the Muslim world. Therefore ascribing the worst of Islam to all Islam and all Muslims is simply incorrect and gives Islamic apologists justification to complain that critics view Islam as monolithic.

    I say this only in a spirit of constructive criticism as you asked for.

    • The Islamic heresy does seem stuck in the 7th century in many respects. Worse, atavistically, they’re trying to move backwards away from the positive impressions the Left has left in the Ummah. They’re as inimical to the values of the dying West as Marxism has proven to be. The West lies prostrate before both vile ideologies, delusioned inside our games and political circuses.

    • Hmmmm, ECAW-

      “Not even in Saudi Arabia or Iran today do we see women and children captured in jihad and made sex slaves”

      We see exactly that in ISIS and Boko Haram. It is very much a part of Islamic tradition and Islamic ideology. Simply because it is de-emphasized in much of the Islamic world today is no reason for you to discount it or trivialize its significance. You remind me of the magician who cleverly diverts his audience’s attention away from what he prefers the audience not to see.

      “As a result Mohammed’s Islam has been diluted patchily throughout the Muslim world. ”

      I don’t doubt that. However, I also think that the sharia of the Reliance of the Traveller is, in the right circumstances, quite capable of making its presence felt.

      “Therefore ascribing the worst of Islam to all Islam and all Muslims”

      I don’t see SF ascribing the worst to all Muslims- I think you are setting up a a straw man. But immutable Islam is what Mohammad and the hadiths say it is. Reliance of the Traveller is the accepted definition of sharia law in Sunni Islam. You seem intent on covering up for that.

      “It shouldn’t be up to the reader to disprove an author’s claims but up to the author to support them. ”

      And oh yeah, Mohammad did call Moslems, “the best of people” while Christians- and Jews in particular- were the worst of people. Perhaps SF was speaking a bit loosely when, so you claim, he said, ““Islam ‘holds that Muslims are the only true human beings’ ”. But not by much.

      I think I have effectively undermined your claims.

      • Liatris Spicatus – Didn’t come close!

        1. This is how SF starts his essay:

        “It’s easy to see why men like Islam: they are favored in every way. They can have arranged marriages, and up to four wives. If they tire of one of their wives, they can divorce her on the spot and get a new model. They can rape and beat their wives whenever they want. The women and children they capture in jihad become their sex slaves forever.”

        Which men in Islam is SF referring to – all of them, most of them, some of them, or just the sliver of the Muslim population in Boko Haram which you bring forward as the one example of Muslim groups which take sex slaves in jihad today? (ISIS no longer exists as a community). I see no qualification in what he writes, just men in Islam, and he uses the present tense. I interpret that as “all men in Islam”. If he doesn’t mean that then he should specify which ones he does mean. Until he does I think it fair to say he is “ascribing the worst of Islam to all Islam and all Muslims”.

        I accept that sex-slavery in jihad is part of Islamic tradition, as shown by my comments about Sharia, but I am unclear what you mean by Islamic ideology. In which documents would I find it? Please specify.

        I am not discounting or trivialising jihad and sex-slavery. I am merely putting them in their correct context and objecting to SF wildly exaggerating their extent.

        I find it disappointing that when I insist on clarity and precision in discussing Islam I often get the ad hominen type of response you have produced, accusing me of sleight of hand and misdirection. For your information I am no kind of Islamic apologist. No one here regards Islam (the central scriptures and doctrines, and the actions they inspire around the world) with more contempt than I do but I go out of my way to provide chapter and verse for everything I write about it. I call that playing fair with readers. In my view unsustantiated assertions are worse than useless because, although they may go down well with the converted, they make it all too easy for neutrals to dismiss our attempts to raise the alarm about the religion of peace.

        2. “I also think that the sharia of the Reliance of the Traveller is, in the right circumstances, quite capable of making its presence felt.”

        I quite agree but fail to see what your claim has to do with the matter in hand. As an aside, I have studied the Reliance quite closely and make clear my attitude to it here:

        https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/the-reliance-of-the-traveller/

        I have to point out that it is not “the accepted definition of sharia law in Sunni Islam”. It is an authoritative manual of Shafi’i jurisprudence but there are others. Its importance to us is that it the clearest exposition of Sharia Law which has been translated into English. I expect you are referring to its endorsement by al-Azhar which is important, but neither you nor I know how many other untranslated manuals they have also endorsed.

        Likewise I would accept, at least, that immutable Islam is what Allah “says” it is in the Koran (the Hadiths and Islamic Law are quite mutable) but do not see what that has to do with the matter in hand.

        3. If you think that calling people the “worst of people” is even close to calling them “not true human beings” then I am not surprised that you accept SF’s very loose claims at face value.

        • “Which men in Islam is SF referring to – all of them, most of them, some of them, or just the sliver of the Muslim population …”

          All men, except for Mohammad who could have as many as he liked. Per Koran 4:3:

          “And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].”

          And of course, unlimited sex slaves (“those your right hand possess”). I will hazard a guess that you are aware of what the Koran says on the matter, so it seems to me that you are setting up smoke screens here.

          Now for all I know, in 7th century Arabia, polygamy made sense (perhaps a shortage of males?). But if so, in Islam, the morays of that time and place are codified in the canon of the faith. Reliance of the Traveller even makes it explicit that a father can marry off his virgin daughter without her consent. And since Mohammad nailed Aisha when she was nine (eight by our calendar?) you have authoritative creeps like Ayatollah Khomeini proclaiming the virtue of marrying your daughters before their “first blood”.

          These are horrible things- pedophilia, sexual slavery to have embedded into the warp and weave of a so-called “religion”. Women in the Islamic world have suffered under its restrictions for centuries. You should not be an enabler.

          • You have just made my point for me. SF appears to be referring to all Muslim men being able to take sex slaves in jihad which is patently rubbish. Just look around the world and tell me how many Muslim men you see doing that.

            As to your calling me an enabler, it is worse than idiotic. You are a [pre-redacted].

        • “I find it disappointing that when I insist on clarity and precision in discussing Islam I often get the ad hominen type of response you have produced,”

          Where have I made an ad hominem attack? I do not mean to do that, and do not believe I have. I admit, I do wonder about your motives. While I do appreciate references where appropriate and precision when discussing Islam, I do think you resort to hair-splitting, almost pointless, distinctions without true differences.

          Case in point:

          “I have to point out that it is not ‘the accepted definition of sharia law in Sunni Islam’. It is an authoritative manual of Shafi’i jurisprudence but there are others.”

          Correct me if I am wrong (with references, svp), but I believe all the major schools of Sunni Islam consider Reliance to be authoritative. Do they ever outright deny its authority? There may be 100 other manuals of Sunni jurisprudence- Islamic tradition has numerous, lengthy, tedious explanations of explanations. But unless other manuals deny the validity of Reliance of the Traveller, I think my claim stands and your “correction” is mere caviling. I am open to being proven wrong- in fact, I would even appreciate the “opportunity” :>).

          Speaking of Reliance:

          “I quite agree but fail to see what your claim has to do with the matter in hand.”

          Because if Reliance is authoritative, then wherever Islam holds sway, we all are at risk of seeing its practices, its jurisprudence, its punishments, enforced. Isn’t that obvious, sir? More than a few Moslems are quite open about their goal in that regard. But thank you for the link to your blog.

          “I am unclear what you mean by Islamic ideology. In which documents would I find it?”

          It is recorded in the Koran and explicated in the “reliable” hadiths”. I encourage you to pursue your close examination of this mountain of twaddle and to report back to the rest of us who are not so inclined.

          “Until he does I think it fair to say he is ‘ascribing the worst of Islam to all Islam and all Muslims’.”

          Absolutely not! Millions of Moslem men have been devoted husbands to their one and only wife. Moslems throughout history- Bosnian Moslems in WW II were a good example- have not acted on Mohammad’s exhortations to kill Jews. You might even say they were not dutiful Moslems. The issue is what Islam allows Moslem men to do, not all of them will act upon the license granted them.

          I note the same criticism of your thinking applies to your point that large portions of the Islamic world no longer legally enforce slavery. I think Saudi Arabia comes very close to that in administrative ways. And it’s not just Boko Haram

          Yes, the various descriptions that litter the canon of Islam- “Jews are descendants of apes and pigs” and Jews & Christians are “vile” is very close to saying they are “not true human beings”.

          I realize I have been harshly critical of you: I do not believe I have indulged in ad hominem attacks against you. I even appreciate our repartee. Unfortunately, this site is not a particularly good forum for detailed discussions.

    • When IS were auctioning Christian and Yazidi captives in Mosul, underage girls fetched the best prices, and the chief buyers were Saudis (whose country “officially” banned slavery in 1962, under pressure from the West).

    • “all Muslim men being able to take sex slaves in jihad which is patently rubbish. . [From one your responses on this thread]

      Well how is it rubbish, sir? How is it constrained. No, in the real world. not all Moslem men have that opportunity. But that is only a matter of circumstance. Were they in different circumstances, the ideology underpinning Islam- as found in the Koran and the “reliable hadiths”- would surely grant them that right (privilege?). And I think you know it, sir.

      Noticed you didn’t bother supporting your argument with references.

      I believe you are being disingenuous here. And, yes, to the extent you obfuscate about sexual slavery, I think in some manner you enable it.

  3. Moslem Woman doesn’t kill 60 million of her own babies the way American Woman does. Why would women be free to do this uncivilized crime? The Moslem woman who rocks the cradles aims to rule the world…and should from a moral standpoint that’s closer to Aquinas than American Woman, 2019 edition..

    • Some years ago – before the current enthusiasm of leftists for the Islamic world came up – I read in the German news magazine Der Spiegel an interview with a German paramedic who had worked in Saudi Arabia for a few years. Among other really bizarre things he reported that Saudi women – or foreign, non-muslim maids etc. who work for Saudi families and are often raped by their employers – frequently dispose of their illegitimate babies on waste disposal sites. According to the man, the number of these dead children is fairly high. Of course, these women have no real choice but to act like this, because, as said in the article above, in Saudi Arabia having sex outside marriage is a severe crime for a woman. So, in what way is a society which forces, as Islamic society does, some of its women to kill their babies better than one, that allowes them to kill their unborn babies? (Just to be clear about this: Personally, I am an opponent to abortion.)

    • Death Be Not Proud, You don’t really believe that a Muslim woman never resorts to abortion, do you? For one example, in Turkey, before legalization of early arbortion (1983), secret abortions took place anyway, with all the usual dangers to the woman. No doubt, in other Middle Eastern countries, there are today many illegal abortions performed.

      The abortion debate is complex, with sincere and thoughtful opinions on both sides. Ascribing moral superiority to Muslim women because of their purported abstention from abortion shows not only an ignorance of the facts (some Muslims do practise abortion) but also an ignorance of the oppressive conditions under which the majority of Muslim women live (with gender-specific subjugation limiting their life choices). They have little or no freedom over their own bodies, over their own lives.

      Also, have you ever thought of sex-selective abortion, often carried out by Muslim women with access to modern pre-natal ultrasound? This is the superior moral choice?

      What of the young unmarried and pregnant young Muslim woman who is then “honour-killed” by her family, not a rare occurrence in Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, etc.? I guess that does tend to keep abortion statistics down.

      Have you ever thought of the high infant mortality in some areas of the Middle East, where uneducated and very young girls find themselves married off as children, then pregnant, and unable to care for their newborns? This is a “civilized” way to treat a young girl? This is a “civilized” way for society to raise the next generation?

      Do you still think the Muslim woman, a product of the Muslim religion and Muslim society, exemplifies moral superiority over the Western woman?

    • It doesn’t have to be one OR the other. One can be upset about two things are the same time; in other words, use AND

      Whataboutism is a disease. Talk about Ted Bundy. What about Ed Kemper?

  4. Who can deny what Mohammad said?

    Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:

    Once Allah’s Messenger went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer.
    Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).”
    They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Messenger ?”
    He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands.
    I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you.
    A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.”
    The women asked, “O Allah’s Messenger ! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?”
    He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?”
    They replied in the affirmative.
    He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence.
    Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?”
    The women replied in the affirmative.
    He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”
    https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-1/Book-6/Hadith-301/

    A glimmer of intelligence, as good followers of Mohammad, as the muslim woman agreed with their great prophet. in understanding allah 🙂 //
    Who can deny Mohammad?

  5. “There is clearly such a thing as instinctual human nature. Humans are designed to be tribal; to be fiercely loyal to one’s own tribe, and to fiercely hate the enemy’s tribe.” this is only half right. Men are wired this way, but women aren’t. Women are wired to seek resources or, in other words, a man that provides the best resources. That’s why women are atracted to musclebrains: in nature a big, muscular man will mean someone that’s good at reeling in resources, because he’s strong enough to hunt and clearly has enough food for that muscle, intelectual capacities get put on the side. And even though we like to think of ourselves as being above nature, civilization really is far too young to have any significant impact on our hardwiring. Especially the Western type of civilization that allows us fairly comfortable lives with plenty of food, shelter and health care. Now compare that to countries like Afghanistan where such luxuries are rare and the whole society makes it extremely difficult for a woman to be on her own. Of course almost none of them is going to speak up against the men, because it’s more important to make sure her children are fed than to be the only wife or wear whatever she wants, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.