new

Assalaamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

Jumping straight in: ISLAM IS A PATRIARCHY

Now some of you will be having a hard time accepting that statement, that’s OK so I am just leave it out there for now and going to ask you to read on and I’ll explain why I said it but for many of you, Islam = Good, Patriarchy = Evil. If after reading this post you still disagree with me feel free to say so in the comments, write your own thoughts on it elsewhere, unfollow, or just generally be mean to me. Don’t worry I won’t cry and I grew up in a time when we were able to disagree without the need for anyone needing a safe place.

It’s pretty clear that in it’s use in academia, the media and the workplace that patriarchy has become this big, evil, dirty word in modern Britain, as well as the rest of the world. It shuts down discussion, prevents dialogue and I would argue stops us getting to the root of problems and having a go at solving them in matters of gender relations. Sadly many Muslims including I assume some you who are reading this post have adopted this use of the word, and the ideas that follow from feminists along with other aspects of ‘progressive’ ideology from the media, fellow race / equality activists, education, especially higher education or just general society around us.

To see if you’re one of these people, read the following three statements and decide whether you agree with the traditionalist Muslim in the dialogue or the progressive one.

Traditionalist Muslim: “Sister’s shouldn’t travel without a mahram.”
Progressive Muslim: “That’s patriarchy!”

Traditionalist Muslim: “Hijab is about behavior not just what you wear.”
Progressive Muslim: “Don’t tell women how to behave or dress, that is patriarchy!”

Traditionalist Muslim: “Any woman who gets married without the permission of her guardian, her nikkah is invalid, her nikkah is invalid, her nikkah is invalid—”
Progressive Muslim: “How dare you tell women who we can or cannot marry, THAT’S PATRIARCHY!”

If you find yourself agreeing with our progressive Muslim brother in the above three dialogues then you have a problem, actually you have two problems. The first is you probably assumed it was a female making the argument, which is really sexist of you, shame on you and your sexist views as there are men and women on both sides of the discussion.

The second problem you have if you agree is that all of them in isolation are statements of truth, Islamic teachings which as a believer you should not be digressing from and the last is even a sahih hadith from the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa salam).

(..)

So as for the rest of us Muslims, we’ll not be changing Islam to suit whatever the prevailing tendencies in society are from decade to decade.

Now if we’re going to have committees to run our institutions I’m all in favour of appointing women to these governing bodies as long as gender relation etiquette is observed as we need to listen to those voices, value their opinion and point of view but don’t come saying we need to appoint female imams, or try to say a woman can run the state or some such other modernist idea.

Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa salam) and the rightly guided khulafa used to make shura (consultation) with the women, listening to their views, valuing those views as valid and worthy of consideration.

We adapt ourselves and our society to and around Islamic teachings, we do not change or bend Islamic norms to suit ourselves and our society and Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) was correct when he said:

“Nothing will rectify the last part of this Ummah except that which rectified its first part.” (i.e. the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu alayhi wa salam)).
— Imam Malik (rahimahullah)
Reported by Ibn ‘AbdulHadi, in Tanqih at-Tahqiq 2/423

We should as believers stand firm in justice and truthfulness, standing up to the tyrants in people’s homes even, who are usually (but not always) men abusing their spouses, producing further dysfunctional people to raise more dysfunctional families of the future ummah.

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.
Quran translation, Surah an-Nisa (the chapter of Women, 4:135

Umar ibn al Khattab (Radiallahu anhu), the second khalifa, the one about whom Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alahi wa salam) said: “If there were to be a Prophet after me, it would be ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab” was a man who used to walk the streets day and night, and when he heard problems in people’s households he would deal with them justly, just as our Nabi (Sallallahu alahi wa salam) did in his time.

When we look at the examples of their lives, we see strong men able to deal justly with strong women taking a full role in accordance with their nature in society around them, not men feeling they can only be strong by forcing down women into a lesser role and the sooner we return to something like that as our target the better for us and the rest of society around us.

We see in the early days of Islam the natural role of women being valued, treasured and there are many evidences to attest to this such as the Sahabi being told to give good company to his mother three times more than his father. Men are men, women are women. We are mentally, emotionally, physically different and we cannot change biology or ignore it, nor should we if we are true to ourselves.

The problem with feminism, especially second and third wave feminism is that it tries to force women to match men or even beat men at their game, rather than getting society to change to value and respect the role and nature of women. That would be true liberation. Promoting the Islamic view point of the true role of women is the way to move forward, a constructive message of productive gender relations to those around us, as well as forbidding the evils of many men both within and without the Islamic community is the way we as Muslims need to go in combating misogyny.

You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma‘roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. Quran translation, Surah Al e ‘Imraan, 3:110

I say within as well as without the Muslim community, as we have to admit to have a problem and that as we’ve so many things we’ve strayed far from the Sunnah when it comes to gender relations and there is a middle path between the free mixing and other sins of the modernists and liberals and the almost absolute and total gender segregation practiced by most traditionalist and salafi communities here in the UK.

Likewise I cannot believe that our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa salam) would allow the practices of marriage bandits, the wife beaters and oppressors, those who refuse to care, maintain and financially support their spouses to go unchallenged if he was with us today as many Imams and activists do by staying silent on these matters.

In this I would urge all the brothers and sisters out there to correct themselves, their families and the community around them. Many revert sisters speak of how they liked the Islamic viewpoint of women’s rights, sadly most of them are disappointed about how we practice that in reality in our daily lives and marriages.

If we can do this, then I believe there will be no reason for even non-Muslims to believe in feminism, never-mind Muslims and we can do it all through the Islamic system, a Patriarchy.

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers. Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite. You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised. Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat. And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently. If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine. The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace: If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal. If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react —

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did. She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps. While you and she were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps. And while you and she were fucking she said

“Stop!”

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness. And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter. If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.