Saturday, February 10, 2007

Dysfunctional Religion, Dysfunctional Families: Dysfunctional Society

What we have here today are two aricles taken from TimesOnline and one taken from We will use these to explore the causes of some problems in the Islamic World.

Before we begin, let me define dysfunctional as describing a situation where the rules are both 1) impossible and 2) unquestionable. In other words, one is not able to abide by them, nor is it permitted to say so. That is dysfunctional.

In an article from TimesOnline entitled "A courageous voice against the Muslim bullyboys", Gina Khan, a British woman of Pakistani descent, is lauded by the author for speaking out against radicalism in the UK's Islamic community. I did a post about her yesterday: "Friends in the Muslim Community". Here is an excerpt from the first article we reference today:

The Government, she complains, has listened too much to the Muslim Council of Britain, which does not represent ordinary Muslims’ views, let alone the views of Muslim women. And even David Cameron, who came up to Birmingham this week to talk about empowering Muslim women, focuses too much on their education, when he should instead — she thinks — be promising to ban the arranged/forced marriages of teenage girls that take them away from school and often condemn them to a life of misery and submission.

Ms. Khan is absolutely right here, and Mr. Cameron is somewhat off. While education can be important, far more important is freedom: women in the Islamic world, where Islamic Law is truly implemented, do not have it. Women are treated, according to strict Islamic Law, in a manner akin to the way cattle are treated; they are treated not as equals, but as property; women are enslaved by Islamic Law. (For links to where that can be explored, see my post "Women in Islam: Resources and Links".) If women in the Islamic world are not free, then all the education in the world for all Muslim women in the world will only get you educated slaves. There may be a benefit to that, as educated slaves would be more likely to rebel and win their freedom, but that is not a given; the deck is stacked against Muslim women in other ways -- more on that later on in this post.

But the most striking point she makes is that Britain is a particularly good place for Muslim women to live in, offering far more equality and opportunity than any Muslim country. Not only are girls encouraged to stay on at school, go to university and have careers. They are treated equally under the law and are not blamed for or expected to put up with domestic violence or rape.

Some key points are being made here. Throughout the Islamic World, where Sharia, Islamic Law is implemented, men rule. Women suffer from domestic violence, codified in Sharia. The situation under Sharia is so bad that a woman who is raped and then comes forward to accuse her attackers gets punished for fornication or adultery.

How and why does a rape victim get punished under Islamic Law? By accusing a man of raping her, she is, under Islamic Law, admitting to having had sexual intercourse with him: if she is unmarried, this is an admission of guilt to fornication; if married, it is adultery that she is admitting to. But what about the rape? Under Islamic Law, she needs FOUR witnesses to the rape for it to be proven that it was against her will: four MALE witnesses.

In the absence of the four male witnesses, she has merely confessed to fornication (punishable by lashing) or adultery (punishable by death by stoning).

There must be hundreds of thousands of Muslim women who share Ms Khan's view of Britain as a welcoming, supportive country that liberates them from the assumptions of male superiority implicit in much of their religion and culture.

Not just Britain, but Canada, the United States, and pretty much anywhere outside of the hell-hole of Islam-dominated countries. When Muslim communities in the Free (=non-Islamic) World request a vote to decide to have Sharia applied to their communities, those Muslim women who are able to get out and vote do so, and they vote against the application of such repressive, Dark Age laws to themselves. Only in Islamic countries, where there may not be a vote, or where women may not be allowed to vote, and certainly where many women do not know better, is Sharia imposed upon them -- by Muslim men!

But while the male-dominated mosques are so influential, and while Muslim fathers and husbands continue to exert so much power over their daughters and wives, Muslim women in Britain are still being subjugated. They may be able to go to university (if they haven’t been flown to Pakistan for an arranged marriage before then) and they may be able to start a career, but all too many are forced to give up as soon as they marry, often to a husband they haven’t even been allowed to choose. And if Ms Khan is right, and informal polygamy is rife in the Muslim community, their lives are doomed still further.

Here is a major problem in the Free World, and it mirrors a problem in the Islamic World: Muslim women in the West are often intimidated and forced, against the laws of the countries they are in, to go along with Sharia requirements, which themselves are violations of the laws of the countries they are in. Even in the Free World, many Muslim women have only what freedoms their men grant to them, within the bounds of Islamic Law.

As she said to me: "Muslim women aren’t suppose to make waves. I didn’t even hear my own screams and tears for 34 years. I have now stepped back and decided to understand and challenge my religion."

Now for some key quotes from the other article from TimesOnline about Ms. Khan, entitled "Our mosques are importing jihad".

Three issues in particular enrage her: forced or arranged marriages for teenage girls, polygamy and the veil. Khan herself was pressurised into marriage at the age of 16 by her father, against her mother’s wish-es. "I was manipulated by my dad’s side of the family into a teen marriage — you know, you are a passport for someone from Pakistan. My mum wanted me to study and make something of my life because she knew what this country had to offer."

In the male-oriented Muslim society, even within the UK where Ms. Khan was born, a woman's right to decide her future, as agreed upon by her mother, means nothing in the face of what her father wants. Forcing a 16-year-old young lady to marry against her will is sexual slavery. This is what much of Islamic Law boils down to: sexual slavery of women.

Do you suppose this guy that she is forced to marry and bring to the UK is going to be part of the solution to all this?

Khan married and became pregnant, but after her baby died she says that she suffered terrible postnatal depression and left the marriage. Her family disowned her, as did the Muslim community. "Where is the support in the community for women?" she asks. "Where is it? It is not here. The best thing you can do is go to the social services." She is full of praise for the instruments of the British state: social services, the police, job centres. If she were prime minister, she says, the first thing she would do is ban teen marriages. “They are still being pulled out of the local girls school here and taken back home, aged 16 or 17, not allowed to get an education. These girls are so young, they can be manipulated by their family’s culture and religion. They don’t have a chance. To wait until they are 25 or so would make more sense."

Women in traditional Islamic societies are atomized; it is difficult for them to mutually support each other. In the Free World, they have to go outside the Muslim community to get support, to get help -- they have to go outside their Muslim community to be treated like people, instead of like cattle or property! In the Islamic World, they typically have absolutely nowhere to turn within society.

This atomization is a big part of the reason why the deck is stacked against women liberating themselves within the Islamic World. As we shall see in a moment, Islamic Law tries to set women in dog-eat-dog competition with one another.

Where does this evil come from?

The mosques, she says, collude in these marriages, as they do in the informal polygamy that she claims is rife in Muslim communities.

Ah! The game is afoot. It gets transmitted via the mosques.

"It is still very, very common here, polygamy. This is Pakistan I have just brought you back into," she says, gesturing at the streets of terraced and semidetached houses. "I know enough stories from women who have come out from abroad, settled with their husbands in arranged marriages and then their husbands have gone back to Pakistan to marry someone else and work out a legal way to get them in the country. In 21st-century Britain the men in the mosques are saying that polygamy is OK, when it does nothing but increase depression in women. No woman in her right mind can share a man. I defy any woman to say she can." As a result, the first wives get desperately depressed. "I am not exaggerating this. There is a majority of mothers with depression. Fathers commit polygamy; any child you ask tells you it is an unhappy and sad situation to be in. It is damaging to society. It should not be happening in 21st-century Britain. They need people to stop it happening."

This has brought us to another evil, another root of the dysfunctionality of Islamic families, the dysfunctionality of Islamic society, the DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF ISLAM: polygamy.

But the mullahs are implicitly condoning both forced marriages and polygamy. "They do not question or do anything about the fact that there are two people who do not want to get married. They are no good with these issues because their answer will be, 'Yes, he is a man, he can have two wives. Yes, you should listen to your parents and marry the person they have chosen'."

So, although polygamy is illegal in Britain, it is still, says, Khan, being practised with a Muslim seal of approval. The "marriages", after all, are being sanctioned in the mosques.

Why won't the United Kingdom enforce the laws it has on the books against polygamy?

The evils of polygamy are addressed by an American who was born in Egypt, Nonie Darwish, in an interview with regarding her new book [Note: there appears to be an editing problem in the interview referenced; some material is repeated in the interview. Read it, and you'll see what I mean.]:

FP: You show how polygamy is a religiously sanctioned structure in the Islamic world. Tell us how you witnessed its affect on women and on the rest of society.

Darwish: Polygamy is allowed under Sharia Islamic family law. The Muslim marriage contract allows a man to marry up to 4 wives and thus loyalty to one woman is not required. Men do not even have to exercise that right to additional wives for the damage to be done. By allowing men to be "loyal" to up to four wives, the stage is set for women to distrust their husbands, especially in times of trouble. Nor can they trust women friends who can be eligible to marry their husbands.

The basic loyalty bond between husband and wife is the basis of all loyalties in the family. In polygamy this basic bond shifts from husband/wife to wife and her father or male blood relatives and later to a woman’s first born son. A woman's father or son becomes her protector and defender in time of trouble in the marriage or when the husband marries another woman.

The basic unit of society, the family, is dysfunctional in the Islamic World because of Islamic Law. Polygamy, codified in Sharia, sets women in competition with one another, so they have nowhere to turn to for help or support. The goal of polygamy, and other aspects of Sharia, such as the legality of having and raping female slaves, has as its obvious aim the sexual gratification of the men in the Islamic World who manage to come out on top, not just at the expense of women, but at the expense of other men as well:

FP: You make the point that Islamic terror has its roots in the rage that exists within the Muslim family. Can you talk about that a bit?

Darwish: ... I believe that even Muslim men are harmed by their right to polygamy which deprives them from a secure loving one man/one woman commitment. Because of polygamy and other sexual restrictions in Muslim society, poorer men have a hard time finding wives who sometimes prefer to be the second, third or fourth wife of a wealthier man. The end result is a large population of sexually deprived unmarried young Muslim men, angry and ready to listen to the calls of jihad in their mosques. Jihad and martyrdom thus become the only guarantee for heaven where 72 virgins will greet them with open arms. In this divine promise from God, polygamy still exists in heaven – and to the disadvantage of the Muslim woman.

Not just to the disadvantage of the Muslim woman, but also to the disadvantage of the Muslim man, as well as to the disadvantage of the non-Muslim woman or man, who shares a planet with this culture of hatred and oppression: polygamy in the Islamic World plays a role in helping provide a seemingly-endless supply of volunteer martyr suicide bombers.

Since Islam and Islamic Law come from Allah, you are not permitted to question any of it. A good Muslim must merely try to live within the society's rules; but, the rules make it a Hell-on-Earth. Islam, Islamic Law, Islamic society -- it's dysfunctional. The only thing that makes it livable is secularization -- getting away from it. And that is what the radicals have vowed to destroy: the possibility to get away from it. They will not rest until Islam is the only religion on earth, and until Islamic Law rules the world, and until any other societies live within, subordinated to, and submissive to, Islamic Society: the radicals will not rest until you are either 1) a slave living in their Hell-on-Earth, or 2) dead.

Some final questions: Where are the West's "feminists"? Why aren't they screaming about this? They so vehemently advocate a woman's "right to choose" -- why don't they advocate a woman's right to choose a spouse, or a career, or a religion?

Why aren't the "bra-burners" burning veils?

Could it be that their ideology is corrupt? Could it be that they are not so concerned about women's rights as they are about their own power? Could it be that they hate subjugation of women far less than they hate conservative Western culture?

Could it be that they really are Feminazis, and for this reason are in de facto league with the Islamofascists against a common enemy, the Great Satan?

President Bush: Here is the real Axis of Evil. It has nothing to do with individual nations, but rather with ideologies, specifically those ideologies which seek to enslave us and establish their own dysfunctional rule over us. The Feminazis have more in common with those men of the Islamic World who wish to keep the oppression of women institutionalized, than they do with the women being enslaved. It's all about power, and the Feminazis aren't going to give up their power any more than the male sheiks, clerics and preachers of Islamic hatred are going to give up theirs.

The United States of America is not perfect, but the fact that so many evil ideologies are against us just proves to me that we must be doing something right.

God bless America, "the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave", where government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people", where WE THE PEOPLE establish the laws, rather than allowing them to be established according to some tyrannical Dark Age -- or New Age -- ideology of conquest.

1 comment:

Highest Infidelity said...

Starts out slow and wordy, but finishes with a bang.