Does Islam need feminism?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

No, judging by the damage it has done in western societies.

The book The Garbage generation was released in 1990. Gives a good insight into he kind of society feminists want to create.

The Garbage generation

The feminist/sexual revolution is not a breakthrough but a throwback. Its program, highly successful thanks to the betrayal of the family by the legal system, is to undermine and destroy patriarchal social organisation, based on male kinship, and to restore matriliny, the female kinship system whose results can be seen in the ghettos, on Indian reservations, in the islands of the Caribbean, and in surviving Stone Age societies.

In primitive tribal society matriliny is well adapted to the peoples needs. In civilised society it is pathological – the source of most crime, delinquency, illegitimacy, educational failure, drug addiction, infantilism, gang violence, demoralisation and sexual confusion.

According to todays lawmakers and judges, society must provide props for the strongest link in the family, the mother infant tie. According to Daniel Amneus, society must instead provide props for the weakest link, the fathers role. Mom got along without patriarchal society and the legal system for two hundred million years, but Dad has got to have them and have them on his side or there will be no two parent family.

The solution: place the children of divorce in the custody of the fathers rather than the mothers. This was the 19th century practice and it made the Victorian family a stable institution. There were only 7000 divorces annually in the 1860s, when John Stuart Mill wrote, ‘They are by law his children’.

Todays judges are virtual accessories to child abuse when they place children in female headed households where they are far more likely to be mistreated, neglected, impoverished and delinquent.

[Karl]

Feminism is also a Zionist conspiracy to destroy Christendom (pretty much trashed), Islam (falling over) and Hindoo (too complicated to know what's really going on) not to mention all the other patriarchal religions. The United Nations is driving feminism all over the world with the help of Rockefeller and Co funds with it's carrot and the stick policy. Hillary Clinton is a crazy feminist and if she gets into power she will nuke Iran for not buckling to this internationalist cultural Marxist menace if Nutjob yahoo doesn't do it first.

[ardianto]

Does Islam need feminism?. What Islam need is Muslim men who can treat the women respectfully.

[Scimitar]

true feminism is the ideal muslimah... modern feminism is a compromised deception of it.

Scimi

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[M.I.A.]

I can't really get behind feminism as it stands today.. For the most part it is misconstrued..

Although I'm all for women who want to stand for something.

Hmm.. Difficult to put into words and not because I'm politically correct.

I believe feminism and jumping on the bandwagon of feminism are two different things..

Same as all issues I guess. Ya just got to get on the right wagon or learn to drive.

:D not a women drivers joke honestly

[Scimitar]

i think these labels and political ideologies such as feminism should be left behind and we should embrace humanism.

Most modern day feminists dont want children - where is their humanity? Dumb aint it?

Scimi

[M.I.A.]

Can't judge a book by its cover I suppose..

Maybe what they do is really dangerous.

[Karl]

i think these labels and political ideologies such as feminism should be left behind and we should embrace humanism.

Most modern day feminists dont want children - where is their humanity? Dumb aint it?

Scimi

Humanism, literary culture: any system which puts human interests and the mind of man paramount, rejecting the supernatural: pragmatism (phil): a critical application of the logical method of pragmatism to all the sciences.

According to my dictionary these three are the meanings of humanism. The second meaning is of course atheist and probably the main meaning that is used so often today.
I am not a humanist because I believe in beings greater than humans and compared to the greatness of God, humans are on a closer plane of existence of greatness to microbes. Which ironically we need them (microbes) more than they need us.
So humanism may be considered extreme pride and delusions of grandeur, a type of collective narcissism and arrogant rejection of God.
And if you have a feminist humanist then you have a real nightmare on your hands.

[Scimitar]

bro, by humanism, I mean humanity - the love of human beings regardless of race, gender, political affiliation, religion *enter label here*.

if you'd read the whole of my post (which really wasn't long at all) you'd have been able to deduce that, but playing advocate to closed concepts is your thing, I get it :D

Scimi

[Karl]

Just giving you my dictionary definition. It never said anything about blindly loving all hominins. Humanists are my enemy. Most are collectivistic atheistic universalistic pigs who are support of the demonic UN and a totalitarian one world government, hence why I want to see them all dead. As far as I'm concerned, for any being to get my love, it needs to earn it FIRST. Hostility in any shape or form from any hominin will only receive my fully deserved hate.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

Here's an even handed review of the Garbage Generation by Dark Eyed Traditionalist

Amneus' underlying theory and explanations of why our society needs patriarchy are solid. I could not find much flaw in his reasoning there. He does insist that men should not have to provide for "non-families" as he calls them, basically meaning men should not have to support illegitimate children and he explains why. He also points out how the welfare state is undermining families and therefore subsidizing illegitimacy. He talks about how female promiscuity, spurned on by the sexual revolution which feminists endorsed, is at the heart of this problem.

Amneus goes into great detail about how feminism has actually wrecked society and how women have deeply been the victims of it as well. When women are promiscuous males are demotivated and don't want to work. When men are forced to support illegitimate children they will evade those sanctions in any way possible. The more the federal government becomes rigorous in enforcing child support payments the more of a backlash is created-against women and children.

Amneus actually endorses men providing for families but insists that they must only do so through marriage. It makes no sense for fatherhood to be determined by biology and in fact defies and goes against human nature itself. There are multiple problems created by the subsidization of illegitimacy. And he also does mention how men wreck intact families as well when the legitimacy of children no longer matters anymore, as our laws now will allow a man who is the biological father of a child (even though he was never married to the mother or ever even known the child) to make a paternity claim and wreck an intact family.

"The existing law states that the woman's husband must be presumed to be the child's father, a legal rule-of-thumb intended to strengthen families and avoid custody battles. Hirschensohn's lawyer, Joel Aaronson, says the legal rule is old fashioned and outdated and fails to take into account recent changes in the American family.

What Hirschensohn is demanding is the right to proclaim his daughter a *******, the right to confuse her concerning her social and family identity, the right to advertise to Gerald D.'s relatives and neighbors and the public that Gerald D. is a cuckold and his wife an adulteress, the right, based upon his status as an adulterer, to perpetually intrude himself into Gerald D.'s household for purposes of visitation, to embarrass and humiliate and weaken the family bonds between Gerald D. and his wife and daughter, the right to deny to Gerald D. his right, which would be unquestioned with respect to non-adulterers, of protecting his home and family from the intrusion of people he doesn't want to associate with.

Hirschensohn says he is only asking to be treated like a divorced father, which is to say he is only asking the courts to declare that marriage confers no rights on husbands. He says that the current law, holding Victoria to be legitimate, fails to take into account "recent changes in the American family." The recent changes referred to are those which replace the Legitimacy Principle by the Promiscuity Principle, and its corollary, the denial to men of any right to procreate and possess legitimate children under the contract of marriage.

That the Supreme Court would even consent to hear such a claim is a dereliction on the part of the profession whose responsibility ought to be the safeguarding of the family but which has instead become the principal agent of the family's destruction."

Amneus also is right on target when he states how feminists betrayed women and, upon hearing the outcries of women everywhere who were left destitute and impoverished on behalf of their movement, they turned around and refused to acknowledge responsibility. Instead of hearing women's cries and instead attempting to reverse the damage and strengthen the family unit, feminists instead undertook to weaken it even more. There is no signs that even today that they have any intention of ever turning back or ever admitting to women the faults of their movement.

This book does clearly explain that women are indeed hurting, but instead of weakening family bonds and forcing the subsidization of illegitimacy which increases the problem, patriarchy, a sexual double standard upon women, and legitimacy must instead be enforced.

Amneus is right on these matters. However, there are a few flaws about this book. First, I believe in a father's right to control his family (a married father in regards to his wife and legitimate children anyways, not unwed fathers by any means) and I understand that Amneus is endorsing father custody as a rule as a means of strengthening the weakest bond in the family (the role of the father). However, Amneus seems to have the general belief that there is no such thing as an innocent women. His basic premise is this: woman bad, guilty; man good, innocent. There is no middle ground for him. Also, he criticizes single-mother families (which are obviously not good and showcase the need for patriarchy and the strengthening of family bonds) to intact families and he uses that as the reason why children are better off in the custody of fathers. Obviously single mother families compared to intact families are going to look pretty bad! If he wanted to say that children do better with single fathers then he should compare single fathers v single mothers, but he doesn't. This book was written at a time when mothers were still generally given custody of their children and states were only beginning to demolish their tender years doctrines. However, since that time things have changed. There have been some studies done on single father v single mother families and single father families aren't looking too good. In fact, compared to single mother families they score downright awful, which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. But, Amneus makes the case that father custody would keep families together by keeping both parents in the marriage. On that his theory is solid.

Second, he never mentions women who are actually innocent. Once again, if women file for divorce then they must be guilty! He states also that men shouldn't have to pay alimony to ex-wives so they (the men) can remarry and have more children and have a full paycheck as a bargaining power to do so! I mean, really? What about the innocent middle-aged ex-wife who's husband has cheated on her and left her? Unlike a man, she is going to have a hard time remarrying and a high-powered career probably isn't going to help her chances a whole lot. If she can't depend on support from her ex-husband then she has no choice but to fulfill the feminist vision for her which means concentration on a full time career and man-hating. That hardly decreases feminism. Amneus also pulls out the same old men's rights dogma that women are more violent then men. Yet he (like most MRAs) never actually backs up his assertions with any credible evidence. He states that men would be OK with entering unstable marriages if they were guaranteed a good deal out of it. Really? How does that solve his problem of family breakdown? It doesn't. All that says is he thinks women are always guilty and men are always innocent and our laws should act accordingly. In other words, give the men a good deal and throw women to the side unconcerned about their fate. And Ameneus' idea that somehow "men have all the responsibilities and women have all the rights" is so incredibly bogus I don't even know where to begin.

But, despite some flaws and obvious men's rights biases this book is solid. It showcases the desperate need for patriarchy in our society. This book says it how it is for the most part. I think that if women will open their hearts and listen to it they will see that Amneus does make good points and he is showcasing the harms of feminism to women and that patriarchy can indeed help women. This book is old and a bit outdated on a few points statistically speaking (such as the bias to mother custody in our courts, which despite father's rights propaganda, numerous studies and research have disproven that such a bias still exists) but feminism is far from dead and the problems are only mounting every day. Amneus' book will always remain true in our need for patriarchy and the good that patriarchy with strong male-headed families can bring to women and children. And yes, ladies, patriarchy does bring good to women. I still recommend this book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Garbage-Ge...R2W2NAT7EBUMKK

Does Islam need feminism?. What Islam need is Muslim men who can treat the women respectfully.

Yes and women should treat men with respect as well brother.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Sara Khan and Maajid Nawaz – Faux Indignation and Feminist Excommunication (Takfir)

The Daily Mail recently raised a furore over Maajid Nawaz’ (Co-Founder and Chair of the Quilliam Foundation, and Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate) session at a strip club, revealing footage in which he appeared to be repeatedly attempting to molest a dancer. As a self-professed ‘feminist’, many eyebrows were raised at Nawaz’ hypocrisy for degrading women in this way.

The double-standards of the “Muslim Feminist”

Sara Khan (director of a women’s human rights organisation, Inspire), widely perceived as an ally in Maajid Nawaz’ campaign to reform Islam into a lobotomised form, was called upon to condemn her ally. She then published an article condemning Maajid Nawaz for his “misogyny” and objectification of the female dancer. She also endorsed another article, by Feminist columnist Sarah Ditum, who said, “Nawaz, of course, is not a feminist”, denouncing Maajid Nawaz as not a feminist, and therefore excommunicating him from the folds of feminism – a veritable feminist “takfir” of sorts.

Whilst Sara Khan and Sarah Ditum posited the hypocrisy of Maajid Nawaz being a feminist and patron of strip clubs, there is further hypocrisy in the fact that many “Muslim feminists” (including Sara Khan) deem it perfectly acceptable to excommunicate others who identify as feminists, yet complain of “intolerance” when they hear Muslims make the same charge against them for their secular, reformist ideas about Islam. Does Nawaz not have the right to define feminism as he sees fit, just as he defines Islam as he sees fit, and just as Sara Khan defines both as she sees fit?

Maajid Nawaz’ feminism is no less valid than Sara Khan’s feminism

Not only is there room for Maajid’ Nawaz’ definition of feminism within feminist theory, but Maajid Nawaz’ understanding of feminism is widely shared within the Feminist community. Maajid Nawaz belongs to a well established Feminist school of thought (madhhab?) known as “sex-positive feminism”, which advocates that women should maximise the use of their sexuality and be free to express their sexual autonomy to ‘empower themselves’ if they choose to. Seeing as there is no singular authority on what can and cannot be feminism, Maajid Nawaz’ feminism is no less valid than Sara Khan’s feminism. If “Muslim Feminists” like Sara Khan insist on advocating feminism amongst Muslims (as their backdoor route to reforming Islam), they must take ownership of all its manifestations and all of their comrades, including Maajid Nawaz’ “sex-positive feminism”. After all, just like their approach to Islam, it’s just down to personal interpretation, right?

Confused Feminist priorities

After The Daily Mail article was released, many Muslims condemned Maajid Nawaz for his activities in a stripclub, including drinking alcohol (during, of all times, Ramadan – the month of abstention) and, significantly, for the alleged molestation of one of the women without her consent.

Many also chided Maajid Nawaz’ allies, being the disproportionately vocal ‘liberal Muslim’ or ‘reformist’ community, especially those that were feminists, for their dithering in condemning someone they had ideologically aligned themselves to and worked with.

Strangely, Sara Khan’s article made no mention of what you’d think would be the most egregious offence – the apparent physical harassment by Maajid Nawaz against the stripper. Instead Sara Khan only criticised Maajid Nawaz for paying money to women for erotic services! In an attempt at whataboutery, she then attacked the Muslim community and its ‘extremists, salafis, HTs and Islamists’, arguing that there had been “misogyny on ALL sides”, and that they were guilty of also ‘taking away women’s rights’ by ‘secret nikkah’ (marriage) without telling their first wives and ‘silencing women’s voices’.

Sara Khan then baldly claimed that Islam and Muslims “sexualise” women by ordaining the hijab. Her argument is as absurd as claiming that governments criminalise their people by outlawing theft, murder and rape. After all, the only time you would impose such laws would be if you considered all people to be criminals, right? Wrong. Laws exist to prevent crimes, likewise the hijab exists to prevent the sexual objectification, exploitation and sexual harassment of women.

O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons: that is most convenient, that they should be known and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (Quran 33:59)

The usual feminist counter argument to this is “but the hijab does not eliminate sexual harassment”. Well, nor do laws eliminate crimes; yet we do not advocate that laws should be abolished. The presence of a hijab, alone, does not eliminate sexual harassment, just as the absence of a hijab does not justify sexual harassment. The purpose of law, however, is to provide strong factors that helps prevent and reduce crimes, but this needs to be supplemented with the welfare of the people, economic justice and moral upbringing in both education and society to provide a complete solution.

Islam’s solution is to nurture a society where everyone, both men and women, are educated and socially reinforced to lower their gaze, in addition to there being proscriptions against strip bars, sexualised advertising on billboards, TV and magazines, and sexualised outdoor wear.

Feminism has no solution to the problem of a hyper-sexualised public life, other than decrying the effects, but not the causes – which is the much vaunted belief in ‘sexual autonomy’ that Liberalism, and its gender-obsessed offshoot, Feminism, highly prizes. Without the “right” for women to publicly “express their sexuality”, the fashion and sex industry would not be able to offer financial incentive for women to exercise that right by working in strip clubs, glamour modelling, pornography and prostitution (for those Liberal states that permit it). No matter how many ‘anti sex-positive’ feminists there are, there will always be women who are willing to accept the cash, damaging the perception of women in society.

Islam nips this situation in the bud by protecting society from an insipid minority, protecting the majority of women from social pressures to sexualise their appearance in public. Sara Khan and Sarah Ditum should not be condemning Maajid Nawaz for being hypocritical to feminism. Given that there are these two validly Feminist schools of thought on using sex as ‘empowerment’, and there are women who choose to work as prostitutes, not as a result of poverty or extreme financial hardship, but because they do not see anything wrong with this as a way of life, who are Sara Khan and Sarah Ditum to determine or berate these women’s ‘liberation of choice’?.

Feminism Contra Women’s Rights

Feminists like Sara Khan claim to be for women’s rights – but in actual fact, the “equality” they advocate, if applied consistently, would strip women of many rights Islam gives them. For example, feminists advocate the abolition of men receiving double the amount of money a woman would receive from inheritance, the husband’s role in leading the family, and many other rights that feminists consider to be “privileges”. However, this blind and fanatical worship of ‘equality’ would also have to eliminate the dowry that women are obliged to receive as a right of marriage, as it too is a privilege. They would also eliminate the husband’s obligation to spend time with the wife, provide for her financially, or provide her sexual satisfaction, which are Islamic rights she is entitled to or can seek redress for in court. Why? Because if a woman has the right to sexual satisfaction from her husband (which Islam provides), then the man would have, too, which feminists cannot abide as they view it as an impingement of women’s “sexual autonomy”.

Feminist Inconsistency in Sexual Autonomy

Sara Khan’s whataboutery in her article includes Muslim men seeking second wives without their first wife’s permission. But why? If women get sexual autonomy (per feminist (and liberal) theory), and should not have to ask anyone of the opposite sex for permission to do something in their private lives, why not men? If Sara Khan follows Feminism, then she must be consistent with it. She cannot demand restrictions upon Muslim men whilst complaining about restrictions upon Muslim women – this is the epitome of gender privilege.

The reason many “Muslim Feminists” complain about polygamy is because many Muslim women would not want their husbands exercising this Islamic allowance to take other wives with no concern for the Islamic rules and conditions, in derogation of their existing wife. But this is the pandora’s box of feminism – if you want sexual autonomy for women, then men get it too. We either invoke Islam to solve these problems, or we invoke feminism and pour petrol on these problems – there’s no having your cake and eating it.

The ‘they-want-to-silence-women’ Fallacy

Sara Khan ends her tirade in typical feminist fashion, pointing to abuse she receives on the internet for merely advocating women’s access to Mosques. Strange, since in all the years I’ve been advocating women’s participation in Da’wah, Mosques and Islamic activism, I’ve never been threatened once with violence or verbally abused – at least not by non-Feminists. In fact, I’ve been invited on to many platforms, mosques and universities by Islamic societies, with not a hint of any problems with me being a woman and a speaker. I’ve encountered no attempts to ‘silence’ my voice by the Muslim community – in fact, quite the opposite.

The problem with feminists like Sara Khan, is that they attribute the negative reaction they receive by the Muslim community as due to their gender (to reinforce amongst themselves their own conspiracy theory of ‘patriarchy’) – when in reality, the Muslim community actually have a problem with their Secular ideas and their joint work in common cause with members of the Quilliam foundation. However, the abuse that I have received in my experience, has been only from feminists, accusing me of being a ‘gender traitor’, and ‘brainwashed by patriarchy’, simply because I call to Islamic ideas they detest – perhaps they hate me allowing a MAN, the Prophet Muhammad (s) to tell me and all Muslim women AND men what is good and bad?

http://zarafaris.com/2015/04/24/sara-khan-and-maajid-nawaz-faux-indignation-and-feminist-excommunication-takfir/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update, Good debate



Not long ago I was invited onto the Islam Channel to discuss ‘Feminism and Islam’, which really ended up discussing the question, Do Muslims need Feminism, or do they need Islam? The full video is now available to watch on YouTube. Please watch, and share widely.

The discussion was televised live on the Islam Channel on 6th September 2013, and the guests were:

Zara Faris (myself) – Muslim Debate Initiative (MDI)
Catherine Heseltine – Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK)
Iqbal Nasim – National Zakat Foundation (NZF)

Oh, and here’s a sneak preview of what you can expect in the video:

I explained what the common threads were between the different forms of feminism, (i.e. the idea of male domination, or ‘patriarchy’) and demonstrated why, when it came to so-called “Islamic Feminism”, these claims were neither true in history or in the present times (briefly explained below).

In our history, it is not true, for example, that men dominated Islamic scholarship (such as the interpretation of hadith) resulting in male bias against women. In reality, not only were the hadith themselves narrated by women in huge numbers, but biographical dictionaries documented subsequent female scholars in the THOUSANDS (who were even teachers of male scholars too!). In parts of Central Asia, there were influential female scholars in such great numbers that no fatwa was issued from a house without a signature of the wife or sister or daughter (whichever was the female scholar) of that household. And the decline in female scholarship today is very much matched by a decline in male scholarship, too. So, when feminists claim that Islamic scholarship has been dominated by men, they do a better job of wiping women out of history than the “patriarchy” allegedly did!

I also explained how the early Western feminists denigrated Muslim men and women in their books (even during the time that Muslim women had it better than their Western counterparts) – even good old Mary Wollstonecraft – and how this narrative was used by colonial powers to divide and weaken the fabric of Muslim societies (whilst, unsurprisingly, rejecting feminism on their own home soil!), and how it is still used today to discredit and undermine Islam.

In the present times, the Muslims are in a state of homelessness, anarchy and desperation, which has wrought havoc on the lives of both men and women – this is not an issue of gender but simply one of justice. For example when Mohamad Bouaziz set himself on fire (igniting the Arab Spring), he was one of hundreds of thousands of Tunisian, Algerian and Egyptian men frustrated by the extreme unemployment, corruption, and tyrannical rule of their lands. He just wanted to be able to provide for his family with dignity – yet feminists didn’t describe his situation as a “mens rights” issue, did they? The struggles Muslim men and women face today are great matters of injustice that we have to address holistically. We should target the root of the problem in accordance with Islam, whose justice is comprehensive in this life and the next and does not have a gender preference.

http://zarafaris.com/2013/10/01/tv-debate-do-muslims-need-feminism/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Im not much for conspiracy theories but this is interesting.

[Scimitar]

they killed Rene after that interview. He said too much.

Scimi

[Futuwwa]

No, Islam doesn't need Western feminism. Western feminism was developed to deal with Western gender issues, and it's becoming increasingly doubtful whether it even has solutions to them.

What is relevant though is to examine whether the prevailing gender paradigms in Islamic communities really are as Islamic as we think. But we don't need Western feminists to dictate to us what we must do.

good website on Islamic gender issues: http://www.altmuslimah.com/

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Why are Malaysia’s Secular Liberal Groups So Afraid of Debate?

A week ago I was in Malaysia, having been invited to deliver a series of lectures on Islam, women’s rights, and a critique of liberalism and feminism. The organisers, Wanita ISMA (an Islamic NGO), had hoped to supplement my tour by organising a panel discussion between me, ISMA, and two members of a small (but disproportionately vocal) secular liberal group deceptively calling themselves “Sisters in Islam” (SIS).

SIS attempts to campaign for secular liberalism and feminism under the guise that these ideas are ‘compatible with Islam’, and claim to be open for debate, discussion and dialogue about ‘Islam’. However, to my knowledge, SIS have never actually invited people who hold different opinions (i.e. mainstream Islamic opinions, like ISMA) to discuss and debate with them on their platforms. Rather, SIS have been content purely to float their views – unopposed – from the safe distance of the internet and the media platforms they are given.

Furthermore, ISMA informed me that previous attempts to hold a debate or discussion with SIS have ended up invariably with SIS pulling out at the last minute. As I have always thought that the best way to test the integrity of ideas is to subject them to scrutiny and debate, I nevertheless asked ISMA to setup a dedicated discussion event while I was in Malaysia, where ISMA and MDI could engage with SIS, on the topic, “Is the shari’ah male-biased, and do we need a feminist interpretation?”.

Preparations for the Debate

As SIS have been known to pull out of events in the past, ISMA wanted to do everything possible to prevent this from happening again: SIS were offered to bring a portion of the event attendees from their own supporters, and after SIS accepted a panel of three speakers (one from MDI, ISMA and SIS), I urged ISMA that it would be fairer to invite two speakers representing SIS (lest they claim after the event that the panel was unbalanced). To prevent SIS from claiming in the lead up to the event, that the event had become too sensationalised in the public, it was also decided hold the discussion as a “closed” event (i.e. not open to the public).

SIS accepted the invitation with these conditions, saying that they would be sending Ratna Osman (Executive Director, SIS) and Mohammad Afiq Noor (Assistant Manager for Legal Advocacy and Public Education, SIS). ISMA then went to work making costly and time-consuming arrangements for a suitable venue and video recording (to be uploaded afterwards for all to see and share in the discussion).

Whilst I was in Malaysia, I asked ISMA if perhaps a panel of four people may be too cumbersome, and that it may be a better idea to facilitate even deeper investigation of the question at hand, by having a 1-on-1 event (between Ratna Osman (SIS) and myself (MDI)). The more speakers that there are on a panel, the more shallow a discussion ends up being; a 1-on-1 would allow each side more time to develop and discuss their views and ensure a deeper discussion of the issues at hand.

ISMA emailed SIS to ask if they were happy to make this change. However, Ratna Osman (SIS) explained that she was not interested in engaging with a “foreign” speaker, and DECLINED to debate if it was not possible to keep to the agreed format.

“Unfortunately the latest email from you that we got today of another change, does not have any ISMA speaker, but a foreign speaker from Muslim Debate Initiative, Ms Zara Huda. As much as we look forward to engage in a dialogue with Ms Zara Huda, I was under the impression that you initiated the forum so that SIS and ISMA would know more of each other’s work and views on Shariah.

If it’s not possible for us to have direct engagement with a speaker from ISMA on 8th May as planned, then lets choose another date for us to meet up.”

– Ratna Osman (email dated 6 May 2015)

ISMA, in a sincere wish for the event to go ahead, reverted to the original plan – a 2 on 2, to directly accommodate SIS’ demand to include ISMA. It is strange that SIS seemed to be so keen to discuss with ISMA when, prior to my arrival in Malaysia, they had never, to my knowledge, invited ISMA to any of their public events – nor ever followed through with any forums/debates that ISMA had agreed to attend.

On a personal note, I also find it strange that SIS were so reluctant to debate me, a “foreigner” when they are totally happy to believe in and advocate foreign ideas – as well being founded by foreigners (i.e. the American arch-secular feminist Amina Wadud, no less)!

Now that the racist demand of not wanting to deal with a “foreigner” had been resolved, and ISMA kept the originally agreed format, one would expect SIS to have no good reason to turn this opportunity down – wrong! Lo and behold, SIS, on the day of the event sent an email CANCELLING, causing ISMA not only financial loss, but sincere disappointment in watching SIS yet again turn away from discussing and subjecting their views to open debate, scrutiny and discussion.

“Professionalism”

Understandably, in response to the cancelling of the event, ISMA made a Press Release exposing SIS’ failure to turn up. Bizarrely, SIS responded that they pulled out due to ISMA’s supposed lack of “professionalism”.

That’s strange, because they definitely seemed to know who I was in the lead up to the debate referring to me (three days before the above tweets) as ‘a foreign speaker from Muslim Debate Initiative, Ms Zara Huda’ and even whining in the same email to be included in a conference I had been invited to speak at:

“We also learned that Ms Zara Huda will be speaking at IMEC2015 International Muslimah Empowerment Conference on 9th May. It would have been good if a speaker from SIS was also included in such a dynamic Conference”

– Ratna Osman (email dated 6 May 2015)

Indeed, “professionalism” does go a long way – for example, not dismissing candidates from discussion because they are “foreign”, keeping one’s word and promises, or even refraining from pettiness and childishness from one of the intended SIS panellists no less, Assistant Manager for Legal Advocacy and Public Education, Mohammad Afiq Noor, who ably demonstrates his ‘professionalism’ by piling on derogatory, and sexist remarks about this “foreign” speaker, referring to me as a “Clothing brand”, and a “fool” for whom the best response is silence (which they still failed to do! [unless they were perhaps advising me not to respond to them?]).

If this is the “professionalism” and calibre of intellect one can expect from SIS, it is no surprise that they are reluctant to have their arguments challenged in a live event, away from the safety of their computer screens. One can only wonder if they were reluctant to debate someone who usually debates, in the West, the non-Muslim Secular Liberal and Feminist role models of SIS, and who SIS look up to and are just a pale imitation of. Or perhaps they were reluctant to debate someone who comes from the West and would disabuse the Malaysians of the false conception of the West being the “utopia” that SIS would portray it as.

If SIS truly possessed the courage of their convictions, why are they so timid? Are they afraid that their own followers would hear of a new explanation which transcends their secular liberal dogmas (that they have blindly borrowed from the West), and encourage them to truly think outside of the box?

A curious fact about SIS’ foreign founder

The day after the debate was supposed to take place was the International Muslimah Empowerment Conference (IMEC) 2015, where I presented my lecture entitled, “Feminism: Heroin(e) of the Masses” (now available to view here). Within this lecture, I discussed feminism and secular liberalism and propounded rational critiques of these philosophies, including whether or not they had truly produced success and happiness in the West. I exposed the so-called “Islamic Feminism” espoused by secular groups plaguing the Muslim world (usually set up with foreign Western support), for what it really is: the ‘reconciling’ of liberal values with Islam, by substituting it in place of the Qur’an’s values, under the guise of “interpretation”.

Secular Feminist reformists in the Muslim world have realised that their feminist claims cannot be satisfied through the reinterpretation of texts alone – rather, they now go so far as to claim that the problem is with the sources themselves – i.e. the Qur’an itself, and the Prophet himself . And to this end, SIS are a case in point.

I mentioned during my speech, the American Amina Wadud, one of the original founders of the feminist organisation, SIS, claims that for explicit verses of the Qur’an that feminists are unable to ‘reinterpret’ (i.e. twist), the possibility of rejecting these verses should be considered.

Wadud states that she has “come to places where how the [Quranic] text says what it says is just plain inadequate or unacceptable, however much interpretation is enacted upon it”[1]. She continues to propose that because particular articulations in the Qur’an as a text are problematic, there exists the “possibility of refuting the text, to talk back, to even say “no”” [2] to the Qur’an! Wadud is proposing that rejecting the text of the Qur’an itself is a possible solution when the text of the Qur’an does not live up to feminist ideals. I mentioned in my speech that this founder of “Sisters in Islam” seems by her claim to want to be out of Islam.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt, Wadud further explains what she meant. She was not questioning whether the verse was from Allah (swt), but rather asserting some self-appointed right to disobey the verse – she would hear but disobey:

“As for “no” to the Qur’an, let me summarize the work I have been doing to overcome some of the apologia of Qur’an and Woman. Yes the Qur’an, I believe and love is considered a form of Allah’s self disclosure, but I do not believe God is locked into the 7th century Arabian context. […] When I say “no” it is not the integrity of the literal text, it is to the implementation of some practices which is a 14 centuries long debate.” [3]

And just in case we’re still misreading Wadud, let us see what her fellow “feminist interpreters” make of Wadud’s words. Omaima Abou-Bakr (whose work is also featured on SIS’ website), Wadud’s own fellow contributor to the recent publication by the Musawah Knowledge Building Initiative, “Men in Charge”, more recently cites and explains:

“Wadud’s recent work, represents a fourth interpretive philosophy […] to transcend ‘textual’ interpretation altogether […]. This development is clearly articulated by Amina Wadud in her second book, Inside the Gender Jihad (2006), which records the change in her interpretive orientation. […] The inspiration of the Qur’anic worldview remains, but because particular articulations in the Qur’an as a text are problematic, there exists the ‘possibility of refuting the text, to talk back, to even say “no”‘ (Wadud, 2006, p.191). Wadud here tries to find a solution to the persisting problematic faced by Islamic feminist interpreters in dealing with difficult, explicit texts.” [4]

Omaima Abou-Bakr continues, explaining Wadud’s approach to the Quran:

“Whereas previously such researchers have tried to resolve this difficulty by drawing attention to the general ‘principles’ of the Qur’an as a frame of reference, in light of which specific texts and injunctions should be understood and interpreted, Wadud takes the issue to another level. The ‘letter’ of the divine text remains a problem, and it is time to stop grappling with it […]. This new perspective would be a means to avoid literal application or implementation of a text when it opposes our current, more progressive human development and understandings […] in this sense the Qur’an is a text ‘in process’.” [5]

Considering that this is the position of SIS’ foreign founder, who SIS describe as being one of seven founders who ‘formed the core of what was to become Sisters in Islam’, it is hard to imagine why they would not be reluctant for someone to point this out in public, and make them answer to scrutiny over just how faithful to Islam and its texts they truly are. Of course, any pretence of basing their ideas on Islam, is merely a smokescreen to facilitate the acceptance by Malaysians of what are, in essence, foreign and un-Islamic ideas that have no basis in the Quran, or rationality.

So, why are Malaysia’s secular liberal groups so afraid of debate? Malaysia’s secular liberals are all for “debate” it seems – as long as their side are the only ones speaking.

http://zarafaris.com/2015/05/15/why-are-malaysias-secular-liberal-groups-so-afraid-of-debate/

[Karl]

@Junon What did Aaron say? As I live at the end of the world where data is expensive I cannot look at videos. Maybe there are others in the same situation so it would be great to get a text version of videos.
BTW SIS are Cultural Marxist Zionists.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another comment piece on the damage feminism has done to western society. Lessons to be learned.

Why Men (and Women) Hate Feminism

A while ago I received an e-mail from one of my female readers. She was being honest and polite, but wanted to know precisely what I had against feminism. It was along the lines of "feminism is about the equal treatment of women, so what is so bad about that?" However, like many other women, I don't believe she was fully aware as to just how far the feminist movement has gone, co-opting women and how far from the truth it is. Thus, I believe it would be to everybody's benefit to explain in detail why most readers here in the Capposphere and elsewhere are against feminism (and to see if I'm missing any other reasons).

Reason #1 - Myopic View of the Sexes

If there is a "primary" reason I would have to say this is it. Feminism started demanding changes in regards to women, with no consideration as to what would happen to the other half of society, ie - men. They also did not think it through and consider children as well. It was a very female-centered approach and nobody considered (let alone, cared) how actions/changes/etc. in women would affect the rest of society. You still see this today based on the policies advocated by feminism in that it is all about women. A secondary concern is given to the children (more often than not, using children as a means to extract government resources), and maybe a tertiary concern is given to men.

Reason #2 - Lies About Human Nature

A close second is the ludicrous concept that men and women are not just equal, but the same. Women can do what men can do. There are no biological differences. And any difference is viewed as sexism or oppression.

The problem is these differences are what makes men and women great. Men like women. Women like men. Men don't like manly women, and women don't like girly men. We enjoy the difference. All feminism has done is ruined the love lives of millions of other women (and men's as well) lying to youth about "being a sensitive 90's man"or a "strong independent woman." That men are "shallow" and "cheap" for liking long legs and big boobs, and that any man who is worth his weight in salt will "like you for you." Women now ignore these basic biological facts about male sexuality, even mocking and scorning them, and fail to attract men.

These lies about the "exact sameness" of men and women also destroy a vital component of our economy and society - the division of labor. Though nobody is ordained or condemned to play these roles, traditionally the wife would stay home, while the husband would work. This allowed for not only better families, but better reared children. It also allowed for happier people (as men are predisposed to go out and work and women are predisposed to stay at home and rear a family). Neither role was inferior to the other. Both were vital, but it was feminism that lied to millions of younger women telling them the grass was greener on the other side. The result has been an increase in divorce, less stable family, less financially stable families, and problem children incapable of becoming functioning adults in society. This has also resulted in women being less happy.

Reason #3 - False Claims of Sexism

The thoroughly debunked "wage gap" is getting mighty tiresome. It is a false argument used only to gain "victim" status by feminists to result in legislation that unfairly benefits women. Affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination against men. Most men resent this

Reason #4 - Not Pulling Your Weight

The wage gap, however, does prove something. Women, for all their clamor of independence and "what you can do I can do better" are failing miserably and only achieving about 76% of what men do. This in spite of all the handicaps of affirmative action, a media that is always supportive, and limitless educational and government programs. Of course, the wage gap is not 100% "proof women aren't pulling their own weight." Many women still take on traditional roles and rear children, some drop out of the work force to take care of their families. But when it comes to majoring in rigorous studies, producing things of economic value, and being economically-contributing members of society, they disproportionately fail. They account for more government workers than men, they account for easier subjects in college than men, and they are nowhere to be seen in dangerous or risky jobs. Women on the whole are NOT equal when it comes to economic production.

Reason #5 - Poor Stewardship of the Right to Vote

This is more of an opinion, but I believe it is an opinion held by the majority of men (and surprisingly, women) who hate feminism (so you may not agree the the political opinion, but it IS a reason some people hate feminism). In short, feminists have been poor stewards of their right to vote. I say this because they have consistently as a group voted for more government and less freedom since given the right to vote. I believe this is because it is in women's nature to be more caring than men, and thus tend to vote for "nicer" things. Children, health care, education, etc. However, "feelings" and "caring" have no place in government finances. That requires passionless thought and consideration, research, mathematics, and an understanding of history and economics. It also requires an appreciation for the freedom granted to us by our forefathers and an understanding of the role government was intended to play. Feminists have proven ignorant about these topics and vote with their hearts, not their heads (and more recently, just for plain politics).

Reason #6 - Replacing Men With the State

Closely related to #5 is that feminists and feminism advocates essentially replacing the husband and father with the state. This is abundantly clear when you see how much money and support single mothers get not to mention this macabre desire by some feminists to eliminate men from the birthing process altogether. Not only does this take away the two most important things in a man's live (his theoretical would-be wife and children), but essentially forces men to compete against the government as a much-better financed suitor. Not only do men lose out on love and family, any children brought into this world via Daddy Government are missing a real father and will suffer incredibly later in life.

Reasons #7 - Hypocrisy

While most hard core feminists will claim they're "independent," they're anything but. They are usually the first to have some kind of make-work government job, some kind of professorship nobody asked for, or begging and pleading for donations to some kind of "activist group." They typically produce nothing of value and require the state to transfer other people's money to create jobs for them. They even point out, point blank, they want more government money for them and/or their children in government policy. And while, yes, there may be that one feminist computer engineer, the vast majority of them are hopelessly dependent.

Reason #8 - Backlash for the Ruination of Women/Men/Lives

In general and summarizing some of the above, most people haven't sat down to think things through to the point they can articulate why the are so frustrated or angry with the opposite sex, let alone what role feminism played in this angst. But both sexes are painfully aware of the lower quality men and women of today. Modern day western women are on the whole unmarriageable, and modern day western men are no where near capable of being a provider or protector. As they ponder these things, however, they will start to realize just what a bunch of BS and lies they were fed in their youth. Lies about the sexes, the roles people were supposed to play, how the sexes were to interact with one another, and what people "should and should not like." As people age, they will see the best thing in their lives (namely, members of the opposite sex) ruined and spoiled, and consequentially the quality of their own lives ruined as well. Men now have to settle for women they're not attracted to, women have to settle for men who are effeminate and clueless, all because a bunch of women in the 1970's were miserable with their lives and (as far as I can tell) merely wanted everybody else to be miserable like them. When people put two and two together, they will see it was feminism that warped and thus ruined this aspect of their lives and they will get angry.

Those are the 8 primary reasons I could come up with. I think there may be more, but at minimum I hope it debunks feminism as simply being the "equal treatment of women" and clears up some things on both sides of the aisle.

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/why-men-and-women-hate-feminism.html

[Karl]

Very good post. And there are other considerations. Technology is advancing so fast that women may not be needed for reproduction, men may opt for sex droids that are custom made to their desires. There is an old saying "women, you can't live with them and can't live without them" that may not be true in the future. Imagine a possible future of "primitives" people that stick to conservative marriage and "modernists" a metrosexual group of people that genetically engineer their own progeny. What do you think the System is pushing for? No mothers, wouldn't that be good for business and cut the costs of social spending?

[Vlad]

Very good post. And there are other considerations. Technology is advancing so fast that women may not be needed for reproduction

An account of origins. Cracks me up!

Imagine a possible future of "primitives" people that stick to conservative marriage and "modernists" a metrosexual group of people that genetically engineer their own progeny.

Warnings of an apocalyptic future.

Men may opt for sex droids that are custom made to their desires.

A certain way of understanding.

Congratulations, you have a new religion. Watching too much Sci-Fi movies?

[Vlad]

Very good post. And there are other considerations. Technology is advancing so fast that women may not be needed for reproduction, men may opt for sex droids that are custom made to their desires. There is an old saying "women, you can't live with them and can't live without them" that may not be true in the future. Imagine a possible future of "primitives" people that stick to conservative marriage and "modernists" a metrosexual group of people that genetically engineer their own progeny. What do you think the System is pushing for? No mothers, wouldn't that be good for business and cut the costs of social spending?

Don't think even singularitarians could have predicted it that way.

[Vlad]

Back to the topic. Nope, we don't need feminism, words cannot describe how this single movement have destroyed the social values of muslims.

Most of the muslims in my part of the world used to get marry at younger age, but this corrupted movement through its western supporters was able to enforced magical "18" number, artificially prolonging the childhood through schools, that you can't get married when you're in school. Now rather than getting married, girls prefer to ran away with their boyfriends!! And then you have campaigns like "Burqa is not obligatory".
Through media campaigns reeducating muslim wives that they shouldn't allow their husband to overwhelm them(that is live your life the way you want) and if he tries to enforce his rights that Islam has given him, you can always get a divorce!

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another comment piece helping to understand the culture that feminism has created.

Feminists are ugly.

This is an old charge against feminists, but one which has typically only been considered superficially. The real reason feminists are ugly has nothing to do with their physical appearance. Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.

One of the effects of feminism is that men of my generation have had a much wider opportunity to cook. I can’t think of any men my age or younger who don’t know how to cook. Moreover, I can’t think of any men of my generation or younger who don’t enjoy cooking. This is in stark contrast to the women of the same generations, who (typically) view cooking as an indignity. The reason for the difference in attitude boils down to what cooking is all about. Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others. It is an opportunity to care for others in a very fundamental way, to literally nourish them through the work of your own hands. This is precisely what troubles the modern woman so much about cooking (or cleaning, or changing diapers). Serving others in the mind of a feminist is an indignity, so cooking, cleaning, or any other act of service and love is the object of revulsion. Women now actually compete to show off their miserliness in caring for others, each trying to outdo the rest in proving they are the greatest scrooge with love. It has gone so far that large numbers of women are quite proud of the fact that they have never learned to cook or otherwise care for others. Their miserliness is a badge of honor. Not all women have adopted this extremely ugly worldview, but the ones who are going against the grain of the culture here understand better than anyone how uncommon their loving and caring attitudes really are today.

The ugliness of the feminist mind-frame towards cooking, cleaning, and caring for others is so profound that it is difficult to process. These women are so obsessed with not showing Christian love that they make it a priority not to serve their own families. Cooking, cleaning, and caring for their own husbands and children is a concept which is repulsive to them. Acts of service to others are in their twisted minds traps to be avoided, and many go so far as to order their entire lives around avoiding showing love to others, especially their families. These women are so gripped by miserliness they have made it a priority not to show love to their own children. When they find themselves unable to avoid an act of service and love to their families altogether, they first steel their hearts with resentment, turning their hearts to stone to avoid the feelings of selfless love they live in constant terror of developing.

It is important to remember that while these women have avoided love and service to others in an attempt to profit, this does not profit them at all. The philosophy of the miser is profoundly destructive to the miser themselves. While we shouldn’t lie about the extreme ugliness in this frame of mind, we should remember that the miser is suffering immensely from their own perverted outlook. There is also great opportunity here. While what I’m describing is quite plain to see once you consider it, very few have ever had the opportunity to really examine it. We can help explain the profound ugliness of a miserly heart, and in doing so (if we are doing it right) we are doing an act of love.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/feminists-are-ugly/

[Karl]

Back to the topic. Nope, we don't need feminism, words cannot describe how this single movement have destroyed the social values of muslims.

Most of the muslims in my part of the world used to get marry at younger age, but this corrupted movement through its western supporters was able to enforced magical "18" number, artificially prolonging the childhood through schools, that you can't get married when you're in school. Now rather than getting married, girls prefer to ran away with their boyfriends!! And then you have campaigns like "Burqa is not obligatory".
Through media campaigns reeducating muslim wives that they shouldn't allow their husband to overwhelm them(that is live your life the way you want) and if he tries to enforce his rights that Islam has given him, you can always get a divorce!

Yes the magic number 18 is the mantra of the Zionist United Nations (as below that you are defined as a child) set up by Marxist Jews with the wealth donated by Rockefeller and Co. It is designed for the oppression of people, the minors being under 18 (and considered mindless) are under the boot of the majors (all knowing sages) those over 18. So called "experts" now believe that people under 25 should be disempowered because those "experts" say that the frontal lobe of every person on the Earth has not developed until then and they cannot make decisions for themselves, their judgement is impaired. Absolute lies! All this is about is bigotry and discrimination.

[truthseeker63]

No one needs Feminism so no Islam and Muslims don't need or want Feminism also Feminism has ruined the West.

[BeTheChange]

Does Islam need feminism? No.

Does feminism need Islam? Yes.

[Karl]

Does Islam need feminism? No.

Does feminism need Islam? Yes.

Feminists are Godless so I don't know how that is going to work. Islam is poison to feminists, the tenets send them into a hysterical rage. They are of Satan and work against divine guidance. The only good feminist is a dead feminist.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Feminism, Family Destroyer

I intend this article to be more of an “academic entry piece” to red pill philosophy, so I have included references to my points for those who need a veneer of academic credibility in order to open their minds to facilitate the reality that can be readily observed on a day-to-day basis by any unbrainwashed human in a feminist society. I do however apologise that the citations do not link to the footnotes as I don’t have the software readily available to do it, so you will have to look in the footnotes manually to see the sources.

Feminism has caused a rift between the sexes, between the age-old union of man and woman, the yin and yang that makes two peas in a pod, men and women have been culturally emancipated from each other in a social engineering effort for them to “not need each other” or very specifically, so that women specifically “don’t need no man!” and can become “a strong independent woman” (read: lonely) which certainly begs the question, how did this come to be?

This paradigm was socially engineered via the efforts of an ideology known as feminism, it was an ideology that sold women the lie that men were inherently evil beings who were oppressive in nature, and by demonizing men told women they needed to give up their femininity and take on more masculine traits in order to meet men on a level playing field under some perverse pretense of “equality.” A divide and conquer technique used to pit the genders against each other, if you will.

We always hear about the “positives of feminism” some real, (civil rights) some imagined (women commonly adopting boisterous and narcissistic self-entitled behaviour? not so much) of course the negatives are something the incredibly biased leftist media neglect to mention or even explore (they give you only one perspective,the so-called “strengths”, but neglect to mention its weaknesses you see), so for once, let’s look at just some of the plethora of negative elements in society which we can attribute as either directly caused by feminism, or correlated with but not caused by feminism. Oh boy, don’t we sure have a lot to talk about?!

1. Single Parenthood.

(READ: Single parent households are almost always headed by women [1]), this is because women tend to unilaterally get custody in the majority of cases due to a biased family court system, another reason for single parenthood is because women can have babies without the consent of the “sperm donor”, eg: she lies to a man that she is on contraception when she is not, when he leaves his sperm inside her post coitus she lets it fertilise inside her and has a baby without the fathers knowledge or consent (reasoning: because she’s broody and wants a child) by the time she carries the baby to term, the man is out of the picture and is completely unaware that his genetic material has been used to create human life.

Single parenthood is bad, one parent is not as good as two for multiple reasons: it leads to lower resource availability, there’s a lower chance of valuable skill sets being made available to the immediate family because there’s only one parent with one set of skills, rather than two parents with two sets of skills and of course then there’s the big one, the primary socialisation of a child – only one gender influence on the child’s development. Atypically in modern western society this manifests as a feminist-feminine influence with no to minimal hegemonic masculine influence on the childs developmental process whatsoever, the resulting lack of developmental diversity holds the child back and gives it a far from optimum start in life to fulfill the apex of its hypothetical potential.

On the note of a lack of resources and the welfare state reliance which encapsulates the majority of those whom can be considered single parents, children raised in single parent households are more likely to be in poverty (as there’s only one adult who can bring in money. [2]) The poverty has a knock-on effect and increases the likelihood the child will commit a crime and spend time in jail [3], it also decreases the likelihood a child will reach university level and attain a bachelor’s degree, as at the high school level it has been observed they begin to fall behind. [4]

This trend is even more resounding in the case of young boys, women cannot teach boys masculinity and what it is to live in the male condition because they simply do not experience it for themselves and by the inherent nature of their own experience, have an opposing frame of reference. A woman can analyse and deduce masculinity from the outside and try to rationalise its nature based upon her observations, but this knowledge is inferior to that which comes from the condition of being male itself, from a man.

A woman cannot teach boys methodologies which men rely upon in their interactions in handling women, they cannot teach them to think like men, they are far more adverse in nature and thus have a tendency to wrap their boys up in cotton wool rather than foster his biological disposition to acquire strength via the tests and tribulations that are available to challenge and strengthen the fortitude and mettle of a young boy, this is strength an adult woman will expect him to have when he is an adult man if she is to choose him as a suitable mate and if he doesn’t “man up” and “grow some balls” his female peers will be asking when they all reach adulthood “where did all the good men go?” This but a mere manifestation of the scam which exposes the feminist idea of gender equality as a complete sham in actual practice.

The type of knowledge that boys need specifically from their fathers is that of which a man of significant value would impart onto his young son in various rites of passages such as: pep talks, trips together through hunting, sports and other male-to-male bonding experiences, experiences which fortify the bonds of father to son friendship and mentorship which young boys NEED to flourish and actualise the best versions of themselves.

Denying boys their fathers is inherently setting them up to fail with odds which do not favour them from the get go as the sheer multitude of knowledge they need to acquire which cannot be taught by their mothers must then be learnt through a psychologically painful, arduous and often humiliating process of trial and error, leaving only the toughest boys to survive and quite literally fight for their masculinity.

Do you need proof of these assertions because you’re cynical of such inherently conducive logic? Allow me to oblige: In single parent households where there is the absence of an father there is a statistically significant increase in rates of suicide, drug abuse and alcohol abuse in young men [5], single parenthood lowers the educational attainment of boys and promotes higher dropout rates (girls are outperforming boys in education at all levels, but especially university level now) [6], it also increases the prevalence of behavioural disorders that can manifest in boys and increases the likelihood that the boy will commit rape. [7]

2. Institutional and social sexism (men must self-censor, women need not.)

The ridicule of men is overt and widely accepted in the media, at work, on the street etc. Women are allowed to make blanket generalisations which are often offensively directed at men (usually delivered in a delightfully catty, condescending manner) and nobody bats an eyelid at this overt display of sexism. Yet you tell a 50-year-old woman she’s quite old (a fact) and you’ve caused great offense which needs social correction that usually goes by something along the lines of: “You never ask a lady her age!” (so apparently the pre-requisite to receive the title of “lady” is simply to be old? anyhow, I digress) It appears that apparently women are so special that many of them can’t handle being old when they get old. Inversely a woman can say you’re a Neanderthal whose brain lives in his cock and nobody will bat an eyelid, a statement far more explicit than asking a woman her age or identifying that she is not young, behold that delectable double standard!

3. Men are safe to criticise and challenge, women are not.

Following on from the previous point, women are not allowed to be criticised anymore as apparently we must place an incredibly high amount of priority on what one could only consider inane sensibilities which manifest from one’s personal insecurities, criticism is about feedback and improvement but women on the feminist bandwagon tend to illogically rationalise anything negative sounding as oppressive and thus shut down completely, resorting to fallacies, shaming tactics and sticking their fingers in their ears to maintain their belief system (quite reminiscent of religious extremism really, isn’t it?) see a rather sublime example of the phenomena I refer to here:

For example, most fat women cannot handle being told they’re fat, that they need to lose weight and being given advice on how to lose their weight, more than likely the woman in question will be offended you’ve acknowledged she has an unhealthy BMI and she’ll either shut down on you, or if she’s american, possibly join one of these perverse fat acceptance movements. Ugly women (not necessarily fat, just ugly) would rather be told that they’re beautiful rather than be told they’re not beautiful and being advised to work on their physicality to help it become the best of what is genetically attainable for them.

In this paradigm where the feminine whims and sensibilities dictate the confines of what essentially constitutes a gynocentric society, society (including lots of clueless men) thus begin to talk more and more bullshit to placate the fragile and delicate egos of western women, rather than be honest and help them to work on improving themselves via the distillation of tough love, also commonly known as “the truth.”

Such is the way of life in places like Eastern Europe where feminism is less pronounced due to the ideology being prevented from spreading there until post-1991 (due to the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain), the ideology has only recently spread there as Eastern European states have joined the EU and opened up their borders to western European nations (which are all feminist welfare states) however, I digress again.

4. Children from single parent households are worse behaved.

Children are no longer punished by schools or their parents, resulting in unruly behaviour and audacious little scrotes saying things like “what you gonna do then? you can’t hit me!” in a provocatively taunting manner, this factor is exacerbated by single parent households as the lack of a strong masculine presence often leads to a lack of self-discipline, substance abuse and all other kinds of **** which ends up in poor behaviour [8] (referenced earlier, but it, have another reference.)

5. Violence/Aggression and any such component associated with masculinity is portrayed as negative in all absolutism.

Apparently these things can never be productive, instrumental or beneficial and they’re always unintelligent, uncontrolled and unproductive. Apparently violence cannot be intelligent or purposeful. Violence can be used instrumentally to discipline people, the military use it and they produce great, self-disciplined strong characters, men. Society used to use the same kind of discipline to a lesser extent, just look at how poorly disciplined most kids are now (go outside and observe if need be) to see what an absence of violence based discipline has resulted in.

Aggression can be used to negotiate/haggle/win/compete etc, masculinity is all of these things as is symptomatic of testosterone, to deny the male condition its right to exist is probably one of the most perverse and ironic things about feminism entirely – it claims to be about “gender equality” whilst it actively vilifies 1 of the 2 genders, masculinity, as inherently malevolent and in need of subjugation so thus by extension of that it demands that masculinity is subject to control in the form of checks and balances sanctioned by feminist approved research and dogma. In short: Feminism tries to pervert masculinity by redefining it with concepts like “the new age man” and demonising what masculinity actually is and always was.

Women test men for dominance like children test adults for dominance, if she thinks you cannot and will definitely not use your physicality as part of the contest for dominance then she will fear little from a man castrated of any iota of imposing physical dominance and use this fearlessness abusively, it’s not just about using violence, but more so the implied threat of violence, the deterrent – if you appear non-hostile as a man then to a woman, due to absence of fear, you are immediately respected less on both a superficial and psychological level. There’s a reason the high school jocks always got all the poon and respect, they were big, which subconsciously implies the ability to kick ass/protect/put her in her place when she’s being irrational and insufferable.

To put a more mainstream glazing on this because some of you out there with ridiculously poor logic will try to construct a strawman of me as encouraging domestic violence and thus all my reasoning null and moot, it is typical that a woman will respect a tall muscular man much more than even a muscular short man, simply because the size and the potential for that size to be used for protection/violence demands respect and it’s this implication of violence which women find inherently masculine in nature and by extension of being masculine, attractive. We can see this most profoundly in mainstream science via woman’s dating preferences, where they are mercilessly biased towards preferring and dating tall men.[9]

Pre-feminism it was socially acceptable to slap or hit a woman or child who was acting out to put them back into line, all of a sudden post-feminism this became a taboo, a most heinous crime. People don’t seem to differentiate between hitting someone because they’re unreasonable and just mindlessly trying to kill them with your bare hands. It seems in a feminist society that a smack and kicking the crap out of someone until they suffer injuries to their internal organs are synonymous acts of atrociousness, they cry “violence is bad, you shouldn’t ever use violence!” “you should never hit a woman!” “I don’t believe in hitting children!”

The reality is, not all violence is bad, it can be instrumental in reinforcing positive and constructive behaviours as long as, like anything, it is not exploited to the point of extremity or systematic abuse. Research has found that smacking small children, as long as they know you are smacking them because you care and want to correct their behaviour, does not do any harm. [10]

Obviously, no such similar research has been done on the romantic relationships between men and women as even the lightest slap from (a man to a woman, but ironically, not from a woman to a man) is considered domestic abuse and thus it is deemed far too politically incorrect to study such phenomena, it would never get the funding in a modern feminist state, but I put forth and postulate that you’d find similar results in cases with male to female interactions, if you want to back it up with real-life observations try asking the baby boomers or the baby boomer parents their opinions and experiences on it (assuming the people in question are willing to discuss such things.)

6. Safety and comfortability are valued over liberty, risk and hard work.

What this means is a sizeable number of people are getting lazy and unproductive (welfare state dependency) and the authorities are able to keep tabs on an ever-increasing population size (police state – CCTV – NSA etc) This is an effective change from masculine moral values to feminine ones in terms of how state government is run. Women make up the majority of the electorate and thus have a bigger say in dictating social policy with their vote. Feminism is not the only cause of the ever-increasing emergence of what appears to be a police state in western nations, terrorism and 9/11 have been used as scapegoats to justify such impingement on ones personal freedoms, however although not the sole reason it is safe to say that the legacy feminism has left is certainly a significant reason, if not a facilitator of today’s emerging western police states. Scare the women, give them a vote, they’ll vote for safety.

7. Wages have lowered in real terms since women entered the workforce.

I won’t say a lot here as the title speaks for itself, however look at this rather sensually telling graph compiled by research done by CNN Money:

Wage rates in America declined in real terms since 1968, not so ironically, coinciding with the eruption of the feminist movement. Where one wage used to be enough to feed an entire family, now often enough at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale two wages are needed. [11]

8. People are more unhappy than they used to be due to the destruction of the family unit and the loneliness it spawns.

More and more people are living alone and dying alone. There are more houses now with 1 person living in them than ever before, we’re becoming more disconnected as a society as more and more family lines cease to continue their lineage, instead falling into disarray due to the ease of divorce and an overly sexualized society which promotes promiscuity over commitment in order to sell products – it’s essentially an implosion of moralistic self-destruction which attacks societies collectives baser instincts in order to “rape them” for profit. [12]

9. The casual normalisation of “Hyper Promiscuity.”

People are casually others without any real pair bonding and then opting to settle down when they’re much older out of fear of impending loneliness and forced solitude or choosing not to start a family at all. The mating culture for people of most ages is simply to use people and them, forming no real pair bonds or emotional connections. Some people attempt relationships but the strength of these relationships is adversely affected by the external temptation which is hook-up culture, say when a relationship is going through a turbulent time, the opportunities offered by hook-up culture can seduce a spouse, leading to adultery, the eventual divulgence of said adultery to the other party involved and then typically an end to said relationship.

Hook-up culture is a direct consequence of the “sexual revolution” which feminism sparked, ignited and proclaims so loudly to be proud of. The notion that female promiscuity should be untamed and socially acceptable conduct, this can still be seen even today with feminisms efforts to normalise female promiscuity via campaigns such as being “anti-**** shaming” sure, because encouraging promiscuity is not only putting one at sexual risk via the prevalence of sexual disease, but is psychologically unappealing to a man looking to seriously build and create something with a woman for the long-term, thus damaging her own long-term chances at attaining happiness with a suitable suitor. Oh the self-inflicting irony.

http://illimitablemen.com/2013/11/25/feminism-family-destroyer/

[MuslimInshallah]

Assalaamu alaikum,


(smile) I suppose it depends on what you mean by feminist. If you mean someone who believes that men and women are equally deserving of dignity and good treatment, then I am a feminist. (smile) Or perhaps a humanist, as in Scimitar's definition. But if you mean do I believe that men are all bad and women are all good? Then, no. Nor do I believe that men and women need to be clones of one another in order to be equal. I do believe that there are differences between men and women, and that we need to take these into account.


I agree with Ardianto's assertion that we need (some) Muslim men to behave better towards women. (smile) But Junon has a point, too, when she (BTW, why does your profile say you are male?) says that women need to behave well with men, too. We all need to work on being just and kind with one another, I think.


I personally have no issue with having a man as the head of the family. (sigh) But I have problems with the way that some men interpret this. Being a leader does not mean being a brutal, ruthless and/or selfish dictator. It means being responsible for those that you care for, and consulting with them, too, in kindness. And following a leader does not mean that you blindly do whatever you are told and shirk your own responsibilities. It means that you share your knowledge and ideas in good faith, and support your leader in whatever is good and right. This is how I have understood the Qur'an and ahadith.


As I interpret Allah's Guidance, submitting to God (Islam) requires efforts to be good to others, particularly those who are weaker and under your care. It requires the taking on of responsibilities. It requires standing up to injustice and wrongdoing, no matter who is doing wrong. (smile) It requires struggling with the differences that exist (gender, class, ethnicity, culture, etc.), and trying to do what is Pleasing to Allah.


If you are in a position of responsibility and power, then you have the obligation, through your belief in God, to only lead towards righteousness, goodness, fairness and kindness. And if you are in a position of being led, then you have a responsibility, through your belief in Allah, to only follow that which leads towards righteousness, goodness, fairness and kindness.


(smile) This is Islam. Islam therefore already incorporates whatever good there is in the various feminist arguments that exist (and there are many). However, given that people professing to be Muslims may have only a superficial interest in Islam (generally, how it can be used to try to gain selfish ends), and given that human beings are inherently weak and prone to lapses, it is natural that Muslims may behave in very unIslamic ways. And this, I think, is something we need to look at, and work to correct.


If we Muslims can feel confident enough about the greatness and goodness of Islam, then we need not fear the critiques that others may have of some of the behaviours of Muslims.


So I would argue: no, Islam (as taught to us by Allah through His Last Prophet) has no need of feminist thought. But we Muslims perhaps need feminist thought to help us deepen our Islam (efforts to do what Pleases God).




May Allah, the Designer, the Unique, Help us to navigate the multiplicities of life, to the One Path (lived by each of us in our own way) that will lead us to Him.

[ardianto]

Not Islam that oppress women, but patriarchal culture in some Muslim societies. Unfortunately Muslims in patriarchal culture also known as people who love to use Islam as justification, including to justify oppression toward women.

If you notice, not in every Muslim society the women are oppressed. In some Muslim societies, women are subordinate of men. But in some other Muslim societies, women are equal partner of men. In some Muslim societies women are barred from proper education and being pushed to just stay at home. But in some other Muslim societies many women hold high education and active in various fields in society.

So, does Islam need feminism?. No!. What need feminism is patriarchal culture.