Skeptic Infidel
"Allah is our goal
The Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is our leader
The Qu’ran is our constitution
Jihad is our way
And death in the way of Allah is our promised end."
“The Message of the Teachings”, By Hasan Al-Banna, Founder, Muslim Brotherhood
It has often been said that life imitates art.
In the mid-1980’s, there was a low-budget alien from outer-space movie, entitled I Come In Peace, the premise of which involved an alien being arriving on Earth, who upon encountering a human being would declare, “I come in peace,” and then brutally murder that person.
On and on throughout the movie, the alien commits murder after horrific murder, each proceeded by a declaration of peaceful intent.
For decades, with increasing frequency and destructive intensity, an alien Islamic world has time and again wrought death and destruction upon the world at large; each time preceded and followed by declarations of peaceful intent. While the non-Muslim world largely continues to believe those declarations, those, who have preyed upon it, have without remission also openly declared their intention to continue doing so.
For whatever reason, the Western world seems to want to believe the former and not the latter, even though the latter is always accompanied by evidence of blood and carnage, and death in the way of Allah as a promised end.
Over several decades, law enforcement agencies, have developed an evolving science of criminal profiling, allowing them to discern in most cases the personality type of specific categories of criminal predators.
While there are many personality traits, and often widely divergent personality types involved, the one trait that is uniform to all violent predators is a narcissistic personality. With the exception of the truly insane, ALL criminal and anti-social behavior is volitional. People do the anti-social things they do, because they choose too, because they WANT too. They do so because of the psychic and emotional rewards such behaviors offer. The one constant is that of narcissistic self-indulgence and self-focus, and the unwillingness or inability to care about or even recognize the humanity of others.
Other than within Islam, nowhere have such behavior and narcissism become a necessary element of spiritual expression.
While proclaiming a direct prophetic lineage extending from Abraham, inclusive of many biblical prophets including Moses and Jesus, Mohammed preached a religious doctrine, in which all are compelled to believe in God, or suffer death; eliminating the principle that one could believe or not believe, or choose or not choose the salvation of God, with God now requiring the absolute submission and surrender of free will of man.
Within Islam, faith was to become less a mechanism for coming to a belief in God, than for demonstrating that one has submitted to God.
Central to the Islamic faith is the principle of predestination, with Mohammed preaching the belief that all that has ever happened, and all that ever will happen, has been predetermined by Allah from the beginning of eternity, with the idea of agency and free will of man being not only irrelevant, but an affront to the will of Allah.
Conveniently, predestination excused the murderous violence of Muslims, in that such violence was clearly the will of Allah and one obviously does NOT condemn the will of Allah.
Quite conveniently, the will of Allah removed from Muslim men any personal responsibility for their violent, predatory behavior.
The Islamic faith is perfect as are the faithful men who profess it. Therefore, while a man may commit a sinful act, it is the act that is imperfect and not the man.
The paradoxical nature of sin within Islam is that while the Koran addresses the sins of man, it specifically attributes all that is evil in the world to the actions of non-Muslims.
If there is sin within Islam, it is clearly the fault of others.
Alas, nowhere within his “perfection” of spiritual doctrine, was there a greater and more radical redefinition of spiritual concept and principle, than with the societal role and treatment of woman, signaling that perhaps God had suddenly developed profound women “issues.”
Mohammed justified his radical redefinition of spiritual principles upon the basis of the Islamic doctrine of “naskh,” or doctrine of abrogation, under which well established religious principles may be changed at the will of Allah, as such change conveniently suited the purposes of Islam, and by the word Islam, pretty much Muslim men.
There was uncomfortably, and remains within this principle, a decidedly large logic problem, in that it implies that an infallible, all powerful and all knowing deity has either been wrong or has changed his mind regarding principles of spiritual salvation.
Also, relative to the Islamic principle of predestination, the doctrine of abrogation seemingly presumes that Allah was predestined to be wrong or predestined to change his mind, while also convenient introducing an element of moral relativity, justifying any action that benefited Islam, and again, pretty much Muslim men.
This principle also redefined the nature of “good and “evil”; making “good,” any act or situation beneficial to Muslims, and “evil,” any act or situation not beneficial to Muslims. If an act or situation, no matter how destructive or repugnant, benefits Islam, it is by its very nature moral, justifiable, and entirely acceptable under this principle.
Conveniently, as a means of disavowing the horrific or inconvenient within Islam, Muslim apologists often point to the Koran as proof that a particular horrific or inconvenient aspect of their culture is in fact, not really a part of their culture after all, because it is not specifically referenced within the Koran.
Arguing that something not specifically addressed within the Koran is not Islamic is a convenient mechanism for dissembling with the truth as there are a great many aspects of Islam that are unquestionably Islamic, also not specifically mentioned within the Koran.
There are in fact within Islam, not one, but three sources of religious authority, (1) the Koran, the actual words of God as transmitted through Mohammed; (2) the Sunna, the actions of Mohammed, or how he lived his life, and depending upon one’s particular sect, (3) the Hadith, or the things which Mohammed said, approved, or disapproved.
Shari’a law is considered to be the divine word of God, governing and dictating every aspect of human interaction; extending primarily from two sources of authority, the Koran, and the Sunna, with most of Shari’a extending not from the Koran, but from the Sunna.
Its rule is absolute and applies to all Muslims and non-Muslims living within Islamic society, as well as to the behavior of faithful Muslims living outside of Muslim society.
The laws of Shari’a encompass five categories, that which is obligatory, that which is recommended, that which is neutral, that which is disapproved, and that which is forbidden.
No reasoning Muslim would ever disavow Shari’a as not being fundamental to Islam, and it is Shari’a, rather than the Koran itself, upon which the West should focus its attention, as it is Shari’a that directly and unequivocally sanctions the horrific and inconvenient within Islam.
As specifically stated within Shari’a law, it is a heresy and an offense punishable by death to criticize or ever question the tenets of Islam, which has become a not uncommon constraint often applied to those who question or criticize Muslim men.
Since Islam is perfect, any criticism of a faithful Muslim may be by extension presumed to be criticism of Islam, and therefore intolerable, ESPECIALLY if such criticism is uttered by a woman.
As a matter of perspective, there is the belief within Islam that there are three things that invalidate the prayers of a faithful Muslim, the presence of a dog, a donkey, or a woman. If either intrudes upon a man in prayer, God will refuse to accept such prayer, which would seem to suggest that God considers these creatures as loathsome; raising the obvious question, “What kind of God doesn’t like dogs?”
Perhaps he has a greater appreciation for cats.
Regardless of God’s preferences, Mohammed clearly was a prophet who thought at the very least that women, if properly housebroken, made good pets, and while he often voiced his opinion that it was more than acceptable on occasion to beat a dog, a donkey, or a woman, the Koran was surprisingly mute on the subject of if and when a woman made a mess on the carpet, whether it was ever acceptable to rub her nose in it, and so that debate within Islam rages and continues.
The word Islam means to submit, or to be in submission, and nowhere within Islam is such submission more rigidly enforced than upon women who are required always to be in obedient submission.
A Muslim woman, who is therefore disobedient, oppositional; critical or rejecting of a Muslim man, may be by extension, considered to be an apostate and rejecting Islam, which is an act and a heresy for which the punishment is or may be, death by beheading, depending upon the momentary disposition of the males within her family.
It is this principle of Islamic perfection that makes possible the most barbaric and inhumane acts of violence toward women without comment or condemnation arising from within the Muslim community.
Occasionally, when such actions have been perpetrated or have become known within the non-Muslim world, vague apologetic statements of condemnation do occur, usually along the lines of, “Islam condemns the murder of innocent people”.
What non-Muslims need to understand about such statements is that they apply only to faithful Muslims, and are expressed solely for assuaging western sensibilities.
The concept of innocence does not apply to non-believers or apostates, as innocence is a state of being to which only a faithful Muslim may make claim. With such statements, Muslim apologists speak only of themselves.
Within Islam, the concept of murder, or the shedding of innocent blood, applies only to a faithful Muslim, as the blood of a non-believer or an apostate is the blood of one who is NOT an innocent. While it is possible to kill a non-believer or apostate Muslim, it is NOT possible to murder a non-believer or apostate Muslim.
While the murder of a faithful believer may be condemnable within Islam, killing a non-believer or an apostate is entirely irrelevant, and not even a serious topic for discussion.
What is not well understood by non-Muslim’s, is that within the category of an apostate, may readily fall those women who criticize, or are in any way oppositional, or rejecting of a Muslim man, and whose subsequent butchery is considered not only NOT murder, but an act of compassion and righteous redemption.
Nowhere within any other religion has the butchery of a human being ever been considered an act of spiritual redemption or affirmation, and while completely alien to western theology, within Islam, the beheading of a disobedient woman may actually be seen as an act of benevolence and compassion toward her, by removing from her the possibility of committing further mortal offense before God.
In an extremely perverse sense, the honor killing of a woman may actually be seen religiously, as a benevolent blessing upon her by those who engage in the righteous act of slaughtering her. Within such a religious culture, such an act is less condemnable than commendable, hence the absence of outrage and the resounding silence within the Muslim community.
Islam is a male oriented religion serving the spiritual needs of men, with women serving their temporal needs and desires, and it is a given that when one refers to Islam, one is referring only to men.
It has been said that to be born female within Islam is both a curse and a potential death sentence, wherein being female is to suffer a life long form of Stockholm Syndrome in which survival is wholly dependent upon identifying with ones tormentor.
Islam’s regard for women was directly ordained and supported by Mohammed in both word and deed, proclaiming that women were in every way inferior to men, physically, emotionally, morally, spiritually, and intellectually.
As specifically determined and approved by Mohammed, the sexual submission of women was and remains absolute and expressly ordained by Islamic law and spiritual principle.
Mohammed viewed women as not only inferior, but as potential agents of Satan sent to test and tempt the righteous, and among his prophetic revelations was the admonition to the faithful, that Hell was overwhelmingly populated by thankless and disobedient women.
Because of the deficiencies of women, their inheritance was set by Mohammed at half that of a man.
The testimony of a woman was also valued at half that of a man, with the consequence that no woman could ever of her own accord sustain a legal claim against any man.
Obedience and absolute sexual servitude were required of women, with any woman being disobedient or denying her husband or master, sexual congress, being cursed and rightfully subject to corporal punishment (Koran 4:34).
The Koran teaches that a man may go into a woman whenever he chooses, and to enjoy her in whatever manner he chooses, with condemnation, curses, and beatings, being the wages of sin for a woman who denies her husband or master the use of her body, so much so that a woman who wishes to pray rather than engage in intercourse is guilty of a grievous sin.
By Mohammed’s determination, there is within Islamic doctrine the belief that men are pure and women are impure, with the world religiously divided into two halves, one half, Dar-al-Harb, (the world of war) consisting of unbelieving infidels and disobedient women, and a Muslim half, Dar-al-Islam (the land of Islam, or the world of peace) consisting of righteous believers, who pursue as an act of faith, war against the former; demonstrating their spiritual obedience to God by first subjugating the impure within their own home, and within their own society.
Islam’s scriptural authorities require faithful Muslim’s to “humiliate” non-believers, and to bring them to an understanding of their state of degradation. The humiliation and degradation of women has become, despite Islam’s denials, an extension of this spiritual directive, with sexuality being the tool for the expression of Islamic dominance, as well as a weapon with which to punish the disobedient and the unbelieving.
Muslim male supremacy requires all women to submit, including women within non-believing countries, and as noted specifically within the Koran AND Shari’a law, there is no such thing as the rape of an unbelieving female, as such intercourse, forcible or otherwise, was approved by Mohammed as an absolute right of entitlement of Muslim men, as specifically addressed by the Koran in 4:24.
Additionally, in order for a Muslim woman to maintain an accusation of rape against a man, that act must be witnessed by four men, who likewise must be willing to testify against the accused Muslim male (Koran 24:13).
That there is even a perceived need within Islam to delineate under what circumstance rape is approved or disapproved, or that religiously sanctioned rape was even a subject for Mohammed’s spiritual consideration, is to the Western mind both instructive and appalling.
Throughout the non-Muslim world, rape committed by Muslim’s is a religiously sanctioned and overt, deliberate act of subjugation, and while the epidemic of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants worldwide may seem like random acts of criminality, they are in fact specifically sanctioned within both the Koran and the Sunna.
That non-Muslim women are specifically targeted is indicative of this aberrant sexual expression as a form of warfare, as an act of taking that belonging to an infidel, as a rightful entitlement of the faithful, and as an act of expressing moral indignation at the offensive and open rebellion of such women by their failure to be in submission to God, and by the term God, Muslim men.
But it is not only non-believing women who are violated with impunity.
Within Islamic communities, Muslim women and girls who have no male family members too protect them, are routinely raped, sodomized, and violated by Muslim men who know that there is virtually no possibility of societal condemnation and no threat of retaliation. Young women and girls who complain become outcast or worse, possibly suffering death for their accusation, or for having dishonored their families.
Within Denmark, for example, Muslim men comprise less than 4% of that country’s population, but commit an estimated 80% of all sexual assaults.
Within Paris, another European city with a sizable Muslim minority, rapes of Muslim and non-Muslim women, are at epidemic proportions with roving gangs of Muslim men gang raping women and girls with absolute impunity, certain that neither their own, nor the French judicial system can or will hold them legally accountable.
In 2002 however, several Muslim girls within the Parisian Muslim community did the unthinkable and complained to police that they had been gang raped by Muslim men.
Upon their arrest, local police were picketed by the wives, mothers, and sisters of the accused, incensed that their men had been arrested for something that was clearly not their fault. In the eyes of these women the young girls were at fault for their own violation, and saw their own male family members as having been victimized by them.
It is a given within a religiously sanctified, Islamic rape culture, that Muslim men are not only NOT legally accountable for rape, but are NOT responsible for their own sexual behavior or for any behavior or circumstance that reflects poorly upon them.
Perversely, in many Islamic communities, it is not at all uncommon for young female family members, to be freely offered up to the men of other families, to be gang raped by those men, as a means of settling some offense or dispute between the families.
But it is not just women and girls within Islam who are often victims of sexual predation, but also adolescent boys.
Along with its culture of rape is the often and pervasive sexual exploitation of young males, and it is within Islam, often the elephant within the room about which no one wishes to speak.
Though condemned by the Koran as an activity expressly forbidden between adult males, it is an extremely common and prevalent practice engaged between adult males and children.
As engaged in between adult males, it is condemned, and often subject to extreme sanction, including execution. However, as engaged in between adult males and pubescent and even pre-pubescent boys, it is a millennial Islamic institution, supported by scriptural references and promises to faithful Muslim’s that there will not only be for their sexual pleasure within paradise, the Houris, immortal females of unsurpassed beauty and purity; free of all of the “inconveniences” of mortal women, but sensuous young boys, “as precious as pearls”.
There is within this negative sexual dynamic a trickle down effect, from adults, to older, to younger boys.
Older boys, who have been feminized, in turn feminize younger boys, who in turn feminize even younger boys. Fellatio and anal intercourse often become individual and even group activities in which boys as young as six or seven years of age regularly engage with adults and with each other. The cultural effect of such endemic feminization within a hyper-masculine culture that loathes and denigrates femininity as impure, is that generations of boys grow to adulthood, denying, yet acutely aware of their exploitation, shame, sexual confusion, rage, and fragile sense of masculinity.
Islamic society is a society where rage, shame, and victimhood are pervasive, dominating cultural characteristics, with, contrary to the representations of liberal western media, the source of most of its rage, humiliation, and victim mentality, to be found within a culture of shameful and often violent sexual exploitation not only of women and girls but also of adolescent male children, acts that ARE specifically referenced within the Koran, the Sunna, and the Hadith. It should also be noted that within Shari’a, the sexual penetration of an infant is not recommended.
To keep reading, click here
No comments:
Post a Comment