Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Strict cultural laws will send extremists scurrying away

Quebec town to immigrants: you can't kill women


By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Immigrants wishing to live in the small Canadian town of Herouxville, Quebec, must not stone women to death in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules released by the local council.

The declaration, published on the town's Web site, has deepened tensions in the predominantly French-speaking province over how tolerant Quebecers should be toward the customs and traditions of immigrants.

"We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here," said the declaration, which makes clear women are allowed to drive, vote, dance, write checks, dress how they want, work and own property.

"Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to ... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."

No one on the town council was available for comment on Tuesday. Herouxville, which has 1,300 inhabitants, is about 160 km (100 miles) northeast of Montreal.

Andre Drouin, the councilor who devised the declaration, told the National Post newspaper that the town was not racist.

"We invite people from all nationalities, all languages, all sexual orientations, whatever, to come live with us, but we want them to know ahead of time how we live," he said.

The declaration is part of a wider debate over "reasonable accommodation," or how far Quebecers should be prepared to change their customs so as not to offend immigrants. Figures from the 2001 census show that around 10 percent of Quebec's 7.5 million population were born outside Canada.

Earlier this month the Journal de Montreal newspaper published a poll of Quebecers showing that 59 percent admitted to harboring some kind of racist feelings.

The Herouxville regulations say girls and boys can exercise together and people should only be allowed to cover their faces at Halloween. Children must not take weapons to school, it adds, although the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Sikh boys have the right to carry ceremonial daggers.

Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal, said the declaration had "set the clock back for decades" as far as race relations were concerned.

"I was shocked and insulted to see these kinds of false stereotypes and ignorance about Islam and our religion ... in a public document written by people in authority who discriminate openly," he told Reuters.

Last year a Montreal gym agreed to install frosted windows after a nearby Hasidic synagogue said it was offended by the sight of adults exercising.

Newspapers say a Montreal community center banned men from prenatal classes to respect Hindu and Sikh traditions and an internal police magazine suggested women police officers allow their male colleagues to interview Hasidic Jews.

Montreal's police force is investigating one of its officers after he posted an anti-immigrant song called "That's Enough Already" on the Internet.

"We want to accept ethnics, but not at any price ... if you're not happy with your fate, there's a place called the airport," the officer sings.

An accompanying video shows clips of Muslims and Hasidic Jews and at one point shows shots of a partially nude woman to mock those who wear veils.

The Herouxville declaration is available, in English and French, at the "avis public" section of the town's Web site, http://municipalite.herouxville.qc.ca.

Cultural laws will send the extremists packing: appeasing extremists will make them more violent

Muslims Out Of Australia
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp



Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Austr alia is not for you", he said on National Television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It." "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"


(Excerpt) Read more at snopes.com ...

Culture that encourages inbreeding is in big trouble (polygamy, forced marriage)

Leading Sydney broadcaster 2GB was guilty of vilifying Lebanese people when presenter Brian Wilshire said they were inbred and had very low IQs, according to an investigation by the media watchdog.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority found yesterday that a 2005 broadcast on the top talk station was a breach of the Commercial Radio Code of Practice. Wilshire made his remarks in a talkback segment late at night just days after the Cronulla riots.


Truth about Muslims forbidden

The riot at Sydney's Conulla beach last Sunday seems to have woken the NSW authorities up to the fact that they are going to have to deal with the Muslim problem officially if vigilante action is not to ensue. But the new laws to enable better police control of aggressive gatherings have been put in place under the pretext of restraining "racism" among Anglo-Australians. Since the Muslims move in large packs, the new laws to deal with groups were needed. But the desperate official need to blame everybody but the Muslims has caught various media figures in the net. Note the following quote about popular Sydney radio announcer Brian Wilshire :
"The career of veteran 2GB announcer Brian Wilshire is in limbo after he called Lebanese-Australians "inbreds" and questioned their intelligence on air. Wilshire, 61, was yesterday pulled off air and made to apologise for comments he made on Thursday night. Discussing Middle Eastern boys involved in violence he said: "Many of them have parents who are first cousins, whose parents were first cousins ... The result of this is inbreeding." Source
What he said is of course the simple truth. Marrying cousins is normal in Arab countries and the average Arab IQ is much lower than the normal Western IQ. You can see here that the average IQ in Lebanon is 86.

IQ of countries can be found here:

http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

Sunday, January 28, 2007

The Turkish State Continues Disseminating Hatred Against Non-Muslims

The Turkish State Continues Disseminating Hatred Against Non-Muslims
AINA



The Turkish State Continues Disseminating Hatred Against Non-Muslims

The Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac Association has recently written about the religiously based threats being continuously spread from the Turkish state ministry responsible for religious affairs, the Diyanet Isleri Baskanligi.

The European Parliament has demanded that Turkey stop these threats, but the situation remains. On the contrary, the threats have intensified.

As the whole world condemns the murder and mourns the death of Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, and as tens of thousands of Muslims participated in the mourning of Hrant Dink, the Turkish state ministry mentioned above has published a statement on its home page.

The statement on the home page says that, from a religious point of view, it's unacceptable for a Muslim to participate in religious ceremonies of non-Muslims. It further states that Muslims are not allowed to pray for blessing or salvation for the soul of a non-Muslim.............

Radical cleric calls for Islamic utopia

Radical cleric calls for Islamic utopia
from ninemsn.com.au


A radical Muslim cleric has urged hundreds of supporters meeting in Sydney's south-west to join a global push to create an Islamic utopia.

Indonesian firebrand cleric Ismail Yusanto outlined his plan for instituting Sharia law, the absolute form of Islam, to a crowd of about 500 people gathered at the Khilafah Conference in Lakemba.

The meeting was organised by the Australian arm of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group widely known for its anti-democratic, anti-Semitic views.

The group believes that it can reduce suffering around the globe by introducing Sharia law and creating an Islamic utopia.

The NSW government has called on the Commonwealth to follow several European and Middle Eastern countries and ban the group.

Dr Yusanto called on followers to denounce capitalism, warning that if Islam was not followed in his Islamic super-state, jihad would follow.

From the nationalisation of utilities for the on-going funding of a jihadist army to fighting off an ensuing American-led invasion, he told the audience never to let pessimism enter their minds when seeking a utopian state of Islam not seen since 1924.

"Once the program is ready it must be implemented as soon as possible," Dr Yusanto said.

"Once successful, the new order would be just the beginning of the new era in the application of Islamic ideology.

Why cultural laws banning special treatment like this be so effective

Row over Muslim only washrooms
Sunday Herald Sun

by Mary Papadakis




A ROW has erupted over Muslim-only washrooms at La Trobe University that can be accessed only with a secret push-button code.

Muslim students have exclusive access to male and female washrooms on campus, sparking claims of bias and discrimination.

The university and Islamic leaders have defended the washrooms as vital to Muslim students' prayer rituals.

...

Australian Family Council spokesman Bill Muehlenberg said concerns over the exclusive facilities were valid.

"Do we have a Christian washroom or an atheist washroom?" he said. "The whole thing is madness."

...

"If Muslims are saying 'we are good Australians and want to integrate', why are they insisting on separate washrooms?" he said.

Victorian Muslim community leader Yasser Soliman said the washrooms were necessary.

He said the separate facilities were also due to concerns from non-Muslim students.

"Muslims need to wash their feet before prayer and in the past there have been complaints about them washing their feet in sinks, so this is a happy medium," he said.

Mr Soliman said most universities provided Muslim-only prayer and washrooms for students.

A La Trobe University spokesman said the washrooms were established with the advice of senior Muslim religious leaders.

He said the university also had a Christian chapel with a meeting room and four chaplains from major denominations had offices.

La Trobe University Christian Union vice-president Richard Thamm backed the washrooms.

"It's part of their religion, they need to wash in a special way before they pray," he said.


Read more at news.com.au ...

Friday, January 26, 2007

“reprisal event”?

Opposites attract: Liberal Beauties and The Islamic Beasts Who Pretend To Love Them.
The Hairy Beast - Come, let's waste your precious time!



The bizarre alliance between Radical Islam and the Western Politico/Cultural Left is never more obvious than when they share a forum. For example, last Saturday London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone and director of the Middle East Forum David Pipes held a debate titled: “A World Civilization or a Clash of Civilizations?” Pipes was supposed to be easy pickings, friends warned him he was falling into a trap. But things worked out rather differently, according to Daniel Johnson of the New York Sun :


As soon as the self-styled “young British mom” in a hijab who was seconding the mayor, Salma Yaqoob, referred to the July 7 London suicide bombings as “reprisal events,” I felt the audience shudder. There was another shudder when Ms. Yaqoob refused to utter the word “Israel.”
Then the biographer of Winston Churchill, Sir Martin Gilbert, rose. “My son was on the subway when these ‘reprisal events’ took place on 7/7. Would you mind telling me what these reprisals were for?” Ms. Yaqoob had no answer. What could she say to him? A great historian who has done the British state some service, who happens to be a Zionist? How could she justify the killing of scores of innocent people, and the attempted murder of countless others, including his son, as a “reprisal event”?

The mayor himself seemed taken aback by the lack of enthusiasm for his side.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

The culture must teach about it's own values above all else

Schools 'must teach Britishness'
BBC


Schools in England should teach "core British values" alongside cultural diversity, a report will say. A review of how schools teach citizenship and diversity found there was not enough emphasis on British identity and history.

The study, by Sir Keith Ajegbo, says pupils should be taught more about what binds them together.

Education Secretary Alan Johnson will say schools should "play a leading role in creating community cohesion".

He will say it will be compulsory for secondary school pupils up to the age of 16 to learn about shared values and life in the UK in their citizenship lessons.

Sir Keith, a former head teacher of a London school and Home Office adviser, has concluded that pupils should be taught more about the history of Britain and about how British values of tolerance and respect developed.

He was asked to look at how the subject of "Citizenship" was being taught in schools. It became compulsory in England's secondary schools in 2002.

Last year schools inspectors Ofsted said the subject was taught badly in one in four schools in England.

Sir Keith's report, which was commissioned by the government, will say more needs to be done to engage white, particularly working-class pupils, with the issue of diversity.

It will say white pupils can feel disenfranchised as much as pupils from other ethnic backgrounds.

"Many indigenous white pupils have negative perceptions of their own identity," it will say.

"It makes no sense in our report to focus on minority ethnic pupils without trying to address and understand the issues for white pupils. It is these white pupils whose attitudes are overwhelmingly important in creating community cohesion.

"Nor is there any advantage in creating confidence in minority ethnic pupils if it leaves white pupils feeling disenfranchised and resentful."

Slavery

The compulsory lessons in shared values for secondary school pupils which will be confirmed by Mr Johnson will include history topics.

At the moment, history is optional after the age of 14. The historical lessons could include topics such as slavery and the movement towards votes for all.

Mr Johnson will say Britain is a nation built from and by people from other countries.

"I believe passionately that schools can and should play a leading role in creating greater community cohesion and combating ignorance of other countries, religions and cultures," he will say.

"By 2010 one in five pupils in our schools will be from an ethnic minority - this is a challenge but also an opportunity to instil a culture of understanding and tolerance at an early age.

"The values our children learn at school will shape the kind of country Britain becomes."

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Extremism is defined by how they dress as well as other characteristics

Bosnia's Muslims divided over inroads of Wahhabism
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-12-29T123616Z_01_L29721748_RTRIDST_0_LIFESTYLE-BOSNIA-WAHHABI-COL.XML ^



SARAJEVO (Reuters) - Last week, Sarajevo's Jesus Heart cathedral was packed for Christmas mass. This week its King Fahd mosque is filled ahead of the Eid al-Adha, the Muslim festival of sacrifice.

The Bosnian capital is still a mix of Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and Islam.

Since the Bosnia war ended in 1995 the Muslim faith dominates, but not all adherents are happy with the increasing numbers of people following the puritanical Sunni Muslim Wahhabi sect.

"Wahhabism has seriously divided children and parents, spiritual leaders and priests, professors and students, neighborhoods," says lecturer Adnan Silajdzic, who teaches comparative religions at Sarajevo University's Faculty of Islamic Studies.

Jasmin Merdan, a Wahhabi dissident and co-author of a book on Wahhabi ideology and history, said the issue was not that they prayed or dressed differently, but that they were intolerant and aggressive toward other Muslims.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Young male brainwashed by a culture of death

The Shots Heard Around The World
Political Mavens/Jewish World Review The Stiletto




Let’s not mince words. It was a teenager who pumped three bullets into Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, 53, at the entrance to the offices of Agos, the bilingual Armenian-Turkish weekly newspaper he founded in 1996. But Dink’s execution is a direct consequence of the policies of the Turkish government concerning the Armenian Genocide, and what Amnesty International terms "a pattern of judicial harassment against him for peacefully expressing his dissenting opinion."

For more than nine decades, successive Turkish governments have denied that Ottoman Turks carried out a systematic – nearly successful – genocidal plan to exterminate Armenians. The official Turkish position has been to characterize the "events of 1915" as resulting from disease, famine, privation and civil conflict as the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the World War I era. Or as an official government report by the Turkish Historical Society put it: "relocations" with "some untoward incidents."

......snip.........

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Why strict cultural laws banning this would be so effective

I cannot shake your hand, sir. I'm a Muslim and you're a man
Daily Mail

by Martin Smith



A Muslim woman police officer has sparked a new debate by refusing to shake hands with Britain's most senior police chief for religious reasons.

The incident happened at a passing-out parade where Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was inspecting a line-up of 200 recruits.

In addition to refusing a traditional congratulatory handshake from Sir Ian, the WPC - who wore a traditional Muslim hijab headscarf - also declined to be photographed with him as she did not want the picture used for 'propaganda purposes'.

The woman had earlier insisted that it was contrary to her religious teaching for her to touch a man.

Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that her gesture has sparked top-level discussions at Scotland Yard.

Some officers argue that her attitude towards men might impede her ability to detain offenders.

However, it is clear that she is happy to come into contact with men, just not shake their hand or kiss them.

An inquiry has now been launched and the unidentified WPC - described as 'a non-Asian Muslim' - could face the sack if it is considered that her strict religious beliefs prevent her performing as an effective police officer.

A culture that preaches killing teachers of girls, and burning of schools

Taliban to open schools in Afghanistan
AP on Yahoo

byNoor Khan - ap



KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - The Taliban's governing body decided to open schools in the areas controlled by the militants in Afghanistan, the purported chief spokesman for the hardline militia told The Associated Press.

Abdul Hai Muthmahien said that Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders decided that from March, Islamic education will be provided in at least six southern provinces — first for boys and later for girls.

"The U.S. and its allies are doing propaganda against the Taliban," Muthmahien said in a phone call to an AP reporter from an undisclosed location late Saturday. "Taliban are not against education. The Taliban want Shariah (Islamic) education."

During its six years of fundamentalist rule, the former Taliban regime barred girls from class, and it has since waged a campaign of violence against state schools. Since its ouster by U.S.-led forces in late 2001, millions of Afghan children — including girls — have gone back to school, many for the first time.

The Taliban's announcement appears aimed at undermining the standing of the democratically elected government of President Hamid Karzai and challenging its writ over southern regions where insurgents have a foothold. It's the first sign since the militia's ouster that it wants to provide social services.

The Taliban last year carried out about 200 arson attacks on state schools and killed some 20 teachers, as its insurgency has gathered strength.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Why cultural laws would have a huge effect on extremism

Tolerance takes a back seat [Puke your guts out]
USA Today

by Khalid Elmasry




Whatever happened to tolerance in America? International media attention has focused on Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport after many, based on their religious beliefs, refused to transport passengers carrying alcohol. It is forbidden in Islam to consume or transport alcohol.

Unfortunately, much of the attention has been negative and based on false information, including suggestions that declining to transport alcohol is only the beginning and that Muslims are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. That's false. Muslims respect the rights of non-Muslims to drink and carry alcohol. We simply ask that our beliefs be equally respected.


Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Why banning all religious headdress will send the extremists scurrying away

Why banning all religious headdress will send the extremists scurrying away
Why the French Government Banned Headscarves in Schools
Washington University in St. Louis

March 15th will mark the third anniversary of a law passed by the French government banning from public schools all clothing that indicates a student's religious affiliation. Though written in a religion-neutral way, most people in France, and around the world, knew the law was aimed at keeping Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to class.

But why? In March 2004, the French government enacted a law prohibiting all clothing that indicates a student's religious affiliation, including headscarves like the one above, in public schools. The perplexing move is the subject of a new book by John Bowen, Ph.D., the Dunbar-Van Cleve Professor in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

John R. Bowen, Ph.D., the Dunbar-Van Cleve Professor of Sociocultural Anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, was in France at the time and has written an enlightening book, recently published by Princeton University Press, titled "Why the French Don't Like Headscarves: Islam, the State and Public Space."

In it, he attempts to explainthrough an examination of France's religious history, ideas about politics and society, and day-to-day media coverage and political events leading up to the law in 2003-04 why the French government made such a perplexing move.

"French public figures seemed to blame the headscarves for a surprising range of France's problems," writes Bowen in the book's introduction, "including anti-Semitism, Islamic fundamentalism, growing ghettoization in the poor suburbs, and the breakdown of order in the classroom. A vote against headscarves would, we heard, support women battling for freedom in Afghanistan, schoolteachers trying to teach history in Lyon, and all those who wished to reinforce the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity."

Bowen, an expert on religion, politics and Islam, was in France conducting research on what Muslims were doing to create their own schools and other institutions in the country.

He says that Muslims living in non-majority Muslim countries like France find it challenging to adapt their religious institutions and practices - such as the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women and girls - to secular laws and traditions.

From that research, he's working on another book, titled "Shaping Islam in France," to be published in 2008, which will examine how French Muslims strive to build a base for their religious lives in a society that views these practices as incompatible with national values.

But as the debate over headscarves heated up, he became interested in that subject and began to follow it closely.

"It's an odd enough thing to do, to ban headscarves," he says. "It led to so much international perplexity or anger that is was worth writing about. Also, it tapped into something deep about France and about people who don't fit into the French cultural mode."

Bird's eye view

Living in France provided Bowen an unusual opportunity to see first-hand how the passage of the headscarves ban unfolded. Bowen sat through debates on the topic at the National Assembly, he analyzednewspapers and television programs and he talked to many officials and intellectuals involved in these issues, both Muslims and non-Muslims.

In the book, Bowen examines the long-term nature of how the state relates to religion in France. He looks at the relationship of external events in the Islamic world and French concerns about Islam, starting in the 1980s. He then examines the 10-month period preceding the law banning headscarves to explain in a much more day-to-day way how public opinion was turned against headscarves and how political pressure to "do something" took over the country.

"France has a long-standing tradition of state control and support of religious activity despite its modern laws concerning secularity," says Bowen. "We often have the misconception that the state stays out of religious affairs. In fact, the French government pays the salaries of all teachers in private religious schools, it organized a national Islamic body, and it and city governments put a lot of money into building churches and mosques.

"But because the Republican political tradition that developed out of the French Revolution of 1789 targeted the privileges of the Catholic Church, many French citizens developed a certain allergy to religions' symbolism in public, and particularly in schools, a battleground between the Church and the Republic," continues Bowen.

"French people see schools as a place where children should leave their particular religious, ethnic or regional loyalties behind and just enter into French life. It's different from our notion of local control."

Rising tension

France has been involved in a tense relationship with the Islamic world since the late 1980s, says Bowen. Algeria, which is now a Muslim state, was part of France until it became independent in 1962.

In the 1980s, with the rise of the political Islam of Salman Rushdie and the Ayatollah Khomeini, many younger French people began claiming the right to be Muslim in public with beards and headscarves.

Also around that time, there began to be bombings in France by people associated with an Islamic military movement in Algeria.

"French people started to link what they saw as dangerous or violent Islam elsewhere in the world with what they saw happening in France," says Bowen. "Every time there was a rise in concern about that, there was a rise in pressure to keep headscarves out of schools. When fear of Islam in the world died down, then that pressure receded as well."

However, in the spring of 2003, France's Interior MinisterNicolas Sarkozy, a front-runner to be hiscountry's next president, made a famous speech denouncing Muslims who did not follow a French law requiring the removal of head coverings for identity photos. He drew a link between Muslim women wearing a headscarf and the failure of Muslims to embrace the Republic.

According to Bowen, the speech fueled a political and media bandwagon; eventually public opinion turned from not wanting to ban headscarves in schools because it seemed trivial to being massively in favor of the law.

The law was passed on March 15, 2004, and first went into effect in September 2004.

"People were prepared for a lot of tension and many girls said they were going to try to wear the scarves anyway," Bowen says. "Then there were some French reporters taken hostage by an armed Islamic group in Iraq that demanded that France rescind the law. Although the two journalists were eventually freed, the fact that they were taken hostage made it disloyal in the court of public opinion to be against the law and many opponents backed off. That was it. There have been very few incidents and things quieted down very quickly."

In fact, the major effect of the law's passage has been to build support for a private school sector that is under development for Muslims in France, Bowen says.

"Muslim public leaders have been creating schools, institutes of higher learning and other training centers to improve Muslims' futures," he says. Bowen has been following one school, which is likely to be the first to receive state funding. There, teachers follow the national curriculum, but they and the students can wear headscarves and pray together on Fridays, just as Catholics follow Catholic worship in their own schools.

address the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves

address the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves
Schools eye Muslim dress
from The Australian

byCath Hart



THE Howard Government is to roll out a pilot program in schools in Muslim areas of western Sydney that will address the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves. The $1 million federally funded three-year program to improve understanding of other faiths and cultures will be run at schools in the suburbs of Lakemba, which has a large Muslim population, and Macquarie Fields, the site of youth riots last year.

The move comes amid broader efforts to reshape Australia's ethnic affairs policies to put a greater emphasis on integration and English-language skills.

The pilot, which will run in up to 16 schools, aims to "reduce isolation and alienation felt by some students" and to "support Australian Muslims to participate successfully in the broader Australian society", according to a government-issued request for tenders to establish and manage the program....snip........

China has strict cultural laws against "radicaliam"

China has strict cultural laws against "radicaliam"
Fear and anger in China's far west [China's muslim region]
IHT

by Jehangir S. Pocha


HOTAN, China: On a recent Friday, the holy day of Islam, crowds swelled inside the antique Jaman Mosque, the largest in this ancient town in the far western Chinese region of Xinjiang, home to the nation's small but restive Muslim minority.

The turbaned and bearded clerics who preached to the gathered faithful had all been vetted for their political beliefs by local Chinese authorities, who determine what sermons they can give, what version of the Koran they may use, and where and how religious gatherings can be held.

The Chinese government forces all Muslims in China to adhere to a state- controlled version of their religion, and banners placed around town warn locals not to stray from the official faith. The imams are not even allowed to issue the call to prayer using a public address system.

The Chinese government has tightened its constraints on the Uighur ethnic minority in western China as officials fear a rise in militant Islam. It is also acutely aware of the growing strategic importance of Xinjiang in Central Asia and the large oil and natural gas reserves under its soil.

To dissuade Uighur youths from inheriting their traditional Islamic culture, the government has banned children from entering mosques, studying Islam or celebrating Islamic holidays.

A man who identified himself only as Abdel rubbed his clean-shaven chin anxiously as his friends finished their dinner of goat soup and noodles.

"The government doesn't allow young people here to grow beards," he said as the sun set. "If you do, they will send you to the forced-labor camps."

The only way to moderate islam is to pass strict cultural laws. nothing else will work

The only way to moderate islam is to pass strict cultural laws. nothing else will work
Abdullah says moderates must fight extremists
Hindustan Times



Abdullah says moderates must fight extremists

Vir Sanghvi

New Delhi, November 30, 2006

The time has come for moderate Muslims all over the world to stand up and fight the extremists within the community.

In an exclusive interview to the Hindustan Times, King Abdullah of Jordan said, "Let the silent majority win the street back."

King Abdullah said that Islam had been hijacked by a minority of extremists who had imposed their own agenda on the community. Further, he said, this agenda relied on miscommunication of Islam's tenets.

All over Asia, Muslims who did not speak Arabic were often misled into believing that the Koran said something which it did not. "The only solution is education and the dissemination of information." .........

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Will Islam convert itself?

Will Islam convert itself?
India Forum

by François Gautier




The recent bombings of the Western Railway system in Mumbai have once again thrown up the same question: Is it possible to dialogue with today’s Islam ? Does it listen to reason ? Does plain logic work ? Will it ever stop killing innocent people in the name of God ?

Take these bombings for instance: do they really make sense ? Here you have a Central Government which is heavily pro-Muslim, making sure that a number of Muslims are appointed in top posts, endeavouring to carve a sizable chunk of reservations for Muslims, as seen in Andra Pradesh and constantly pandering to India’s Muslim minority. The bombings also happen in Maharashtra, a state governed by the Congress, where many Muslims live and work, the financial capital of India, whose prosperity benefits all, including Muslims…

The same illogical strain seems to have got hold of the Government of India, whether it is BJP or Congress ruled. We keep hearing that those blasts, in Delhi, Vanarasi or Mumbai, are the work of the ISI of Pakistan or Bangladeshi extremists. But what they don’t say is that it would be impossible for these people to function unless they have a lot of ground sympathy amongst local Indian Muslims. And the question has to be asked again: why should Indian Muslims go against their own Government, which has done so much for them since Independence ? Why should Indian Muslims target India, a country where they have more freedom than in say Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia ?

Every time also, the Government comes out with the same litany: “these acts are meant to create communal violence, be peaceful, don’t react”. Which basically means, “ You Hindus (who are targeted), keep quiet and get killed. Who cares anyway”. And a few months later, another blast takes the lives of a few more innocent Hindus. But how long will the Hindus keep quiet? This is the question that the Indian Government has to ask itself. Gujarat has paved the way: However reprehensible these acts of mass vengeance were, they have shown that Hindus keep quiet for a long time: they get riled at, they are made fun of, they are despised, their women raped, men killed, children burnt in trains and one day they blow up - and blow up badly. Riots don’t erupt in a few days: they are the fruit of decades, of generations even, of suppressed anger, of frustration, of a silent majority which sees itself more and more marginalized and taken for granted.

Yes, we do occasionally come across wonderful Muslims, open, friendly, who have somehow preserved the knowledge that all religions are the same, that Islam in India owes a lot to the tolerance of Indians, that Hinduism, yoga, meditation and pranayama, are India’s gifts to the world and can be practiced by Muslims, Christians and Hindus alike. I have personally met quite a few of them, within the Art Of Living Family, for example. But they are such rarities. And even those educated Muslims, whom you can talk to, will not go as far as criticizing the Koran. Look at Javed Akhtar’s poetic tearjerker on the Bombay blasts (“As a human being, I shudder to think how can my fellow humans do something so heinous? Are these terrorists made of flesh and blood? Do they laugh and cry like us”?). Not once Akhtar, who has made a favourite pastime of deriding Hindu Gurus, said that all these crimes are committed in the name of Islam and the Koran, “his” religion and “his” Scriptures…

So will Islam ultimately convert itself? Because the problem is not with Muslims, but with the Koran. Will it, instead of feeling totally paranoiac, thinking that it is under attack everywhere, whether it is Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, or France, realize that it is actually Islam which is the aggressor all over the world, that Muslims who have settled in France or India, or the UK, and which these countries have sincerely accepted, giving them citizenship and the same rights as any French, Indian or German citizens, are actually biting the hand that fed them ? Will the mullahs of Islam accept to sit down and reform the Koran, which is a perfectly acceptable scripture for the Middle ages, when mentalities were very different, but which today still propagates an aggressive, exclusive, and dangerous zeal in its children?

This is what we are all hoping for. This is what most Western leaders secretly crave for, when they go out of their way to praise and favour the moderate Muslims of their country. This is what spiritual leaders like His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are attempting, with a certain amount of success, by speaking to Muslim leaders, fostering ties in Muslim countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan, or reforming Kashmiri terrorists through meditation.

Unfortunately, time is running out. Muslims in India and elsewhere in the world do not understand is that we are slowly losing our innocence. At the moment, Islam still benefits from the sympathy of the media, which constantly negates Islamic fundamentalism, making a hero for instance of the Chechen warlord Shamil Bassayev, recently killed, who organized the gruesome massacre of hundreds of children in Beslan and a villain of Vladimir Putin (or a hero of Sadddam Hussain and a monster of Bush) but it is slowly losing that sympathy. Sooner or later nearly the entire world will wage a war against Islam, from Europe to China, from the Ural to Pakistan.

There will also come a time, which is not very far, where everybody will become wary of anything Islamic. Anyone looking slightly Muslim, in a plane, in a train, in a shopping mall, will be looked upon suspiciously. Anybody with a Muslim name will have problems entering any country. Those who have Muslim friends will quietly stop seeing them or find some excuses not to meet them. It is already happening. Muslims will cry themselves hoarse and speak of persecution. But they will have only themselves to blame: they did not speak up as a community when innocents all over the world were killed in the name of their religion .

And this may be the way Islam will slowly disappear. Muslims with a little common sense, or just maybe with a sense of survival, will start changing their names quietly, they will stop going to the Mosque, they will send their children to Christian or Hindu schools. Governments will clamp down so hard on their own Muslims, there will be so many restrictions on them, that entire families, will move out of the Muslim enclaves you find all over the world, to resettle elsewhere. Jehadis facing certain death even if they are not suicide bombers, will melt back in civilian life. Muslims will slowly lose faith in the righteousness and the power of their own religion, become atheists, or even embrace back Hinduism, as 90% of Muslims in India are Hindu converts. It may take a few decades, a hundred years even, But Islam will surely disappear in the alleys of history and what look now like menacing, dangerous, foreboding force will be looked upon as just another religion that came and passed away..

Unless Islam converts itself…

Sunday, January 14, 2007

rather than threaten radical islam, they should call on moderate islam

IMO Bush and Blair and other leaders should change their rhetoric a little: rather than threaten radical islam, they should call on moderate islam to go into Iraq, and turn it into the first functioning non fascist country in the muslim world. Threatening islam in any way shape or form just stirs up the islamists.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

ITALY: MP RECEIVES DEATH THREATS OVER HER ANTI-VEIL BATTLE

from adnchronosinternational

ITALY: MP RECEIVES DEATH THREATS OVER HER ANTI-VEIL BATTLE

Rome, 10 Jan. (AKI) - Italian conservative MP Daniela Santanche has received death threats over her opposition to the Muslim veil, Italy's leading paper Corriere della Sera reported in a front-page article on Wednesday. Santanche reportedly received a letter in Arabic and English at her lower house office Tuesday night with pictures of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, murdered in 2004 by an Islamist fundamentalist for his movie Submission, which denounced violence on women in Muslim countries, and Dutch MP Hirsi Ali, the film's author, who has also received death threats.

"This is the hour of my liberation...your time has come," the note said. The message also carried a paragraph from the BBC World website on 23 October, describing Santanche as an MP who "has said the veil is not required by the Koran" and has been described as "an infidel by an imam."

Santanche, a leading member of the right-wing National Alliance Party in Italy's opposition, has been under police escort since late October last year, when her criticism of the Muslim veil led to threats which were considered serious by security officials, including those of Muslim cleric Aby Shwaima, the imam of the mosque of Segrate in Milan and one of the founders of Italy's largest Muslim group UCOII, who slammed her as an "infidel" during a television show on Sky Italia on 20 October.

Shwaima's outrage was sparked by two television interviews given by Santanche in which she had said that the Muslim veil "is not a religious symbol and it is not required by the Koran" and that "it is not a symbol of freedom."

it's time for Bush to start calling on all worldwide moderate muslims

IMO it's time for Bush to start calling on all worldwide moderate muslims (including Ellison and all american muslims) to step up to the plate and demand an end to all "violence" and preaching of violence and hate and blaming everything on Israel. He should call for a worldwide muslim effort to establish an idyllic paradise in Iraq.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Maybe Ellison should call for immediate ceasing of all muslim violence and preaching of hatred worldwide

Rep. Ellison wants forces out of Iraq
AP

FREDERIC J. FROMMER, AP Writer




WASHINGTON - The first Muslim member of Congress says the solution to Iraq lies in an immediate withdrawal of military forces and focusing instead on political and diplomatic efforts.

"We could describe it as a redeployment or withdrawal, but I think we have run the course in terms of our ability to resolve this conflict militarily," said Rep. Keith Ellison (news, bio, voting record), a freshman Minnesota Democrat.

"I think we need to have a political and economic and diplomatic engagement, and we need to encourage the forces that are in Iraq to begin to resolve the violence in Iraq," Ellison said Tuesday during an interview with The Associated Press.

Ellison argued that President Bush's expected plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq is "way too late, way too little" to make a difference.

"So rather than do something small and ineffective, why not get about the business of what we're going to have to do eventually, which is to begin to end the occupation?" he said.

Bush is expected to ask Congress for $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I want to see (the request) first, I want to actually look at it, but I'm not inclined to continue to support a war or an occupation that he has no plans to get us out of, and which is so costly in terms of dollars and lives of American soldiers — but also Iraqis," Ellison said.

Asked for a response to Ellison's comments, the White House referred to Bush press secretary Tony Snow's remarks to reporters on Tuesday. Snow said that Democrats will have to decide where they stand on two issues: "No. 1, do you want Iraq to succeed, and, if so, what does that mean? And, No. 2, do you believe in supporting the troops as you say, and how do you express that support?"

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

A cultural nightmare

Boys of the Taliban
FrontpageMagazine

Boys of the Taliban By Jamie Glazov

FrontPageMagazine.com | January 1, 2007

Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters.

Many of the instructions were to be expected: rule No. 25 commands the murder of teachers if a warning and a beating does not dissuade them from teaching. No. 26 outlines the exquisite delicacy of burning schools and destroying anything that aid organizations might undertake -- such as the building of a new road, school or clinic. The essence of the other rules are easily left to the imagination, basically involving what militant Islam is about: vile hate, death and destruction.

But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters.

Right.

(Cough and clearing of the throat).

Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule -- and the horrid reality that it represents -- because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality -- and puts her out of mind and sight -- is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions.

It is no surprise that John Racy, a psychiatrist with much experience in Arab societies, has noted that homosexuality is “extremely common” in many parts of the Arab world. [1] Indeed, even though homosexuality is officially despised in this culture and strictly prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, incarceration and/or death, having sex with boys or effeminate men is actually a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The key is this: the male who does the penetrating is not considered to be homosexual or emasculated any more than if he were to have sex with his wife, while the male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man. A man who has sex with boys is simply doing what many men (especially unmarried ones) do. [2] And this reality is connected to the fact that, as scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic-Arab societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination. [3]

While secrecy and taboo surround this phenomenon, some courageous Arabs have dared to discuss and expose it. Walid Shoebat, for instance, a former Palestinian terrorist, has openly related the abuse of young boys in Palestinian Muslim society. He himself witnessed a line of shepherd boys waiting for their turn to sodomize a five-year-old boy. [4] Amnesty International has also reported that Afghan warlords routinely sexually victimize young boys and film the orgies. [5] (The sexual abuse of young girls in this environment is also obviously widespread). [6]

While she was in Afghanistan in 1961, author and scholar Phyllis Chesler saw homosexuals roaming the streets, holding hands in broad daylight and gazing into each other’s eyes. “One of the pair,” she writes, “might sport a flower behind his ear; another might be wearing lipstick or have rouged cheeks.” At the same time, Chesler observed that everyone, including her Arab husband, was in denial about this common social reality, refusing to admit that this widespread behaviour was, in fact, homosexuality. [7]

In the dysfunctional and morbid paradigms of this culture, the idea of love is, obviously, completely absent from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to a form of prison sex: hurting others with violence. A gigantic rupture inevitably develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. [8]

The sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that develop in the mindset of many males in this culture are excruciating. And it is no surprise that many of them find the only avenue for personal gratification in the act of sexually abusing young boys and, of course, in humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs -- just as theirs once was.

Islamist terror, therefore, is, in part, very much a release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage in connection to sexual frustration and desperation -- and to the humiliation connected to feelings of emasculation, which culminates in the act of striking out against “the enemy” and violating his masculinity. The inner workings of this mindset explain why Islamic terrorists consistently engage in sexual mutilation of their victims. Psychiatrist David Gutmann notes this phenomenon in the context of Arab Jew-hatred:

The Israelis perform in this Arab psychodrama of gender as a potent, destabilizing threat: to begin with, as a people they broke out of the deprecated but tolerated status of Dhimmi - a kind of submissive "woman" - to the "masculine" status of pioneer, rebel, warrior and nation builder. In retaliation, in their wars and Intifadas the Arabs strive to castrate the uppity masculinizing Jew -- and this project is carried out quite literally on the battlefield, where the bodies of fallen Jews have been mutilated in the most obscene ways. [9]

This lust for violence against “the enemy” and the accompanying yearning to die in the process are fuelled by the morbid earthly existence that is engendered by militant Islam. Indeed, there exists very few reasons for males to value their time on earth; their freedom of action and ability to experience joy and pleasure are extremely limited in terms of what is allowed. To be sure, most young men have absolutely no experience in love, sex, affection or friendship with females, and they have no outlet for their libido, which, to further pathologize the mindset, they regard as evil temptation. Killing and dying, therefore, become the only areas where free will can be exercised.

This lust for death is further compounded by the theological underpinnings of Islam itself, which promises the Muslim male sexual treats in the afterlife which are forbidden to him on earth. Indeed, if a Muslim male dies in the cause of jihad, he will enjoy a blissful union with virgins in paradise (Suras 78:31, 37:40-48, 44:51-55). And for those Muslim warriors for whom women are not of interest, there will be young pre-pubescent boys at their service -- and they will be like “scattered pearls” of “perpetual freshness” (Suras 52:24, 56:17, 76:19).

Thus, for the Taliban fighters who are frustrated with the new obstacles posed by Rule No. 19, there no doubt exists an even greater incentive to get to paradise a little faster.

In essence, suicide through jihad represents a form of perverted liberty through which an individual can express himself. In so doing, the Islamic radical strikes out at what tempts him, avenges his own emasculation and, through the act of suicide, cleanses himself of his own temptation by ridding himself of his earthly existence.

Theodore Dalrymple offers a profound analysis of this phenomenon in the context of the Muslim fundamentalist’s agonizing hate and self-hate inside a Western society. Analyzing the motivations of the Pakistani suicide bombers who struck in London in June 2005, he demonstrates that they saw no way out of their confrontation with freedom and modernity except death:

What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart. The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith. [10]

All of these inter-related phenomena serve as windows of understanding for us, through which we become able to grasp the demented and psychopathic psychology that creates the need for a rule such as the Taliban’s No. 19. It is a rule that exposes a fanatic mindset that holds the sight and reality of an unveiled woman to be a horrific nightmare and the greatest sin, yet simultaneously considers the forced rape of a young prepubescent boy to be in the normal swing of things.

It is on this eerie and putrid plateau that we come to see the factors that spawn the yearning for death and suicide inside militant Islam. Circumscribed in the most vicious and sadistic of ways, the men imprisoned in these cages long to regain a masculinity and humanity that was violently robbed from them as children. In a setting where healing through contact with feminine affection is denied and considered evil, self-extinction through hurting the “enemy” -- and the tempter -- becomes the only way out.

Notes:

[1] David Pryce-Jones, The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Chicago: Irvin R. Dee, 2002), p.131.

[2] Bruce Dunne, “Power and Sexuality in the Middle East,” Middle East Report, Spring 1998. For a further discussion on the widespread homosexuality among men in Muslim societies in North Africa and South Asia, and how married men having sex with boys and other men is considered a social norm, and not “homosexual,” see Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Muslim Societies (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1992).

[3] Dunne.

[4] Chesler, The Death of Feminism, (Macmillan: New York , 2005), p.144.

[5] Chesler, p.144.

[6] Author Nawal El Saadawi, gives an account of the horrifying and widespread sexual abuse of young girls in the Muslim-Arab world, a crime for which the perpetrators are exonerated. See Sadawwi, The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World, pp.12-24. While it is obvious that this abuse, as with the abuse of young boys, is connected to the unavailability of women for men in the culture at large, Chesler notes that the widespread sexual abuse of female children in the Muslim world “is one of the main ways of traumatizing and shaming girls into obedience and rendering them less capable of rebellion or resistance when they grow up.” (Chesler, p.145)

[7] Chesler, p.88 and p.144.

[8] Dunne.

[9] David Gutmann, “Symposium: Purifying Allah's Soil,” FrontPageMagazine.com, January 27, 2006.

[10] Theodore Dalrymple, “The Suicide Bombers Among Us,” City Journal, Autumn 2005.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

------------------------------------------------------ Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

Dr. Sanity: A VICIOUS MISOGYNY

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2007/01/vicious-misogyny.html

Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life Wednesday, January 03, 2007

A VICIOUS MISOGYNY

In "The Boys of the Taliban", Jamie Glazov writes about one particular rule (rule 19) of the new Taliban "code of conduct" for its fighters in Afghanistan:

But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters....

Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule -- and the horrid reality that it represents -- because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality -- and puts her out of mind and sight -- is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions. Glazov goes on to argue that Islamist terror can be thought of in part, at least, as a response to sexual rage, frustration, and the humiliation of being connected to a "degraded mother." Thus the men in the culture must constantly assert their masculinity, defend their masculine "honor", and strike out in rage against any who "shame" them.

This is apparent in the sexual mutilation of terror victims who are perceived as "inferior" by the Islamists, and on a par with women of their own culture. It is also seen in the Freudian symbolism of the barbaric act of beheading; as well as in the ubiquitous rape of non-muslim women around the world.

To some extent, such behavior has been seen in all cultures that debase or oppress women. In misogynistic cultures (and individuals) there is usually both the revulsion of the "whore" combined with a perverse obsession with, attraction to, and idealization of "perfection" in a woman (the "madonna" complex). In order to be idealized, women must be stripped of any hint of sexuality. As a culture, the Arab-Islamic world has perfected this "stripping" to a nightmarish art form of shapeless, individualess, blank nothingness.

Misogyny can be defined as an unreasonable fear or hatred of women. Ever since Eve tempted Adam, women have been reviled in many ways and for many overt reasons around the world and in various cultures. They are hated and feared for their bodies, which tempt men to give into their "base" instincts; They are feared and considered "unclean" because of their monthly cycle of bleeding; they are hated for their unique feminine abilities, which are invariably considered malicious--or worse, evil--by the misogynist individual or culture.

There are three basic motivations underlying why men fear/hate/vilify women (and they are not mutually exclusive, but may exist in various combinations or all at the same time) : -sexual frustration; -castration anxiety, and -resentment and anger at being dependent on women, especially the mother.

The idealization of women, on the other hand, originates from the innate desire of all humans, male or female, to return to the perfect union with the mother that each experienced in the womb.

There are also multiple reasons why women might hate other women on both an individual and societal level, and thus are often complicit in their own subjugation in misogynistic societies.

Many women hate or envy other women whose existence lowers their own status with men, i.e., other women who are more attractive than they are either in looks or accomplishment, depending on the cultural expectations. For example, in one culture a woman might attract men because of her beauty; in another because of her purity or religious devotion. A corollary to this is that the aging woman will increasingly become aware of her diminishing attraction to men or usefulness to a society that only values her reproductive capability. This sets up a dynamic tension between old and young women. In all cultures where female genital mutilation occurs, while it is the male-dominated society that mandates it, the operation itself is performed by older women on younger women; and has the direct effect of decreasing the sexual capabilities/responsiveness of the younger--thus "leveling the playing field" by some accounts. Older--"useless" women--can become societal heroes only by embracing the violence and rage of the sexually frutstrated and fearful men.

Needless to say, the family dynamics in viciously misogynic cultures like those dominated by Islamic extremists, create severely impaired girls and boys. It has been noted by many researchers and observers that children of both sexes are routinely physically and sexually abused by male relatives (indeed there are religious rules that designate under what circumstances babies may be used for sexual gratification by adults) . The boys are publicly circumcised and the girls clitoridectomized. Women's behavior becomes the source of all shame and dishonor, and they must be ruthlessly controlled. The degree of control is proportional to the degree of sexual repression and frustration (and hence rage) that is mandated by the culture/religion.

In normal societies, the act of "mothering", which is almost always relegated to the female, may be accomplished by either females or males as long as they provide that early and continual nurturing, acceptance and security that a baby needs. The role of "fathering" can also be taken on either by females or males, particularly to the offspring of the same sex and that role usually begins at about the toddler (age 4 give or take). To raise a healthy child, healthy males and females are essential. But the cultural debasement and humiliation of women has a profound impact on the children.

Male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and later, their sons)have not been "feminized". Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness and constantly.

In "Where Have All The Mothers Gone?" I commented about a study which demonstrated the power of "good" mothers --i.e., normal, healthy, functioning and unoppressed by their culture-- in overcoming aggression or "bad" behavior in children. Researchers discovered that "good" mothering was able to prevent aggressive and self-destructive behavior in at-risk monkeys. In human terms, "Good" mothering provides a child with respect, love, and security-- the basic aspects of "nurture" that are essential for normal development.

The findings of this and other landmark research clearly suggest that without an early mothering influence children were much more likely to grow up to be aggressive and antisocial.

From a psychological perspective then, the freedom and empowerment of women in society are absolutely critical because they are responsible for the earliest environmental influences on children--influences that will impact the child throughout his or her life. If the society has little respect for women and regularly demonizes, debases or humiliates them, it will have a profound generational impact. This is why encouraging women's rights around the world should be a high priority in US Foreign Policy.

Women subjected to institutionalized, societal abuse (such as what we saw under the Taliban; and what we see to a greater or lesser extent in almost all Islamic countries--where physical abuse is sanctioned; where women are sexually demonized; where they are deprived of education, as well as physical, social, economic and political freedom) are hardly in a psychological position to be able to provide effective "nurturing" to children.

Women whose own aggressive impulses have been savagely constrained by society and who have few options to sublimate those impulses, are at grave risk of encouraging aggressive and violent "acting out" on the part of their children on their behalf-- especially the male child who must be seriously conflicted about his love for and identification with a lowly-regarded woman.

In other words, such women will hardly prevent inappropriate aggression in their offspring, when such aggression vicariously meets their own needs. And the male children will have to assert their separation and distance from the debased female that is their mother, as aggressively and violently as possible. The father, who might undo some of this early pathology is himself also in the grip of the dysfunctional societal demands, and he must constantly deal with subverting his own normal sexual drives which can only find expression through sanctioned deviancy (as exemplified in Rule 19) and aggression toward women who dare to challenge the societal taboos(i.e., unveiled women, "uppity women", or any infidel women). Is it any wonder sexual impulses become so perverted and directed toward children? Or that child sexual abuse becomes the only societal outlet for sexuality? Or that the residual aggression is expressed in a barbaric, uncivilized manner?

Family dynamics obviously play an extremely important role in the development of personality, especially in providing values and role-models. The dysfunctional family of Middle Eastern Muslims, where women are hidden and oppressed; prevented from ever being able to grow up normally, while the sexually repressed and enraged men must avoid the shame of the feminine and must aggressively defend his honor and manhood by controlling and debasing anyone who threatens it.

Under the Taliban, which arguably is the most malignant iteration of Islam's dysfunction, women were actively oppressed and beaten for any attempt to express themselves. Even today, there are actual "debates" about this.

Sexuality is an essential part of each of us. The double standards of modesty and behavior encouraged by the current practice of Islam is destructive to the normal development of personality in both males and females. Psychopathic traits in males are societally encouraged, while females are conditioned to be their willing victims. (When women seek to "equal" men by blowing themselves up, you know there is some sort of psychopathy at work--as opposed to "gender liberation"). Also, how will a child grow up normally knowing their mother thinks of them in this way?

A culture that is viciously misogynistic creates both men and women who are severely dysfunctional in almost every sphere of human activity.

Islam Based on Epileptic Prophecies

Islam Based on Epileptic Prophecies, says Book From Iran-Native Neuropsychologist
ummahnewslinks

CANTON, Ohio, Dec. 11 - Religious prophet Muhammad suffered from epileptic seizures, according to a book recently released by a Tehran- native and Muslim-raised neuropsychologist. Abbas Sadeghian delivers these findings in the book Sword & Seizure, which is based on historical text, including the Koran.

Sadeghian was inspired by a comparable paper he presented in 2001 at New York University's Fielding Institute. He says Muhammad had suffered from "complex partial seizures," which are displayed through "excessive sweating and light trembling, olfactory, auditory and visual hallucinations, epigastric sensations (bad taste), excessive perspiration and hyper-religiosity." He says evidence of these is recounted throughout the Koran.

When asked by a reporter from the Canton Repository if the same diagnosis could apply to Jesus, Buddha or other religious figures, Sadeghian replied there aren't nearly as many independent historical documents detailing their lives.

"In order to do proper analysis, you must have documentation independent of what the person wrote," he said. "Muhammad lived longer and had people around him who were aware they were living in a historic moment.

They documented observations in extreme detail and in real time."

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D has been practicing neuropsychology for nearly 20 years and is a long-standing faculty member at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.

His book is now available at both Barnes & Noble and Borders, as well as Amazon and the publisher's online store.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

There are muslims with AMERICAN PASSPORTS genociding blacks in Somalia!

SOMALIA PROVES THAT IT'S BETTER IF WE FIGHT THEM "OVER THERE"

There are muslims with AMERICAN PASSPORTS genociding blacks in Somalia

How long before we find out who they are, "he was such a nice boy"

Bush has been right all along:

Bush has repeatedly said that we are fighting the enemy over there - (meaning Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, etc.) - so we don't have to fight them over here.


ABC's THE BLOTTER (hat tip DRUDGE) reports PROOF that this is true for the USA, (and just as true for other nations in the West - in the Free World)

A senior official in the Somali government's new Ministry of the Interior tolzad ABC News government forces had recovered "dozens of foreign passports," including several American passports, on the bodies of al Qaeda fighters killed in combat between forces affiliated with the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) and Ethiopian forces in Somalia.

These jihadists did NOT become radicalized in Somalia - or because of Iraq, (or Afghanistan). Like the 9/11 perp's, they were likely radicalized long before OSLO collapsed.

If we were not fighting them in Iraq and elsewhere, then they'd be free to attack us here - as many others already have. And every one we kill makes us a little safer.

Let's kill more or these jihadists. Let's kill as many as we have to to get them to unconditionally surrender. Let's kill them all if we have to. FDR would've.

from the terrific blog http://www.astuteblogger.blogspot.com/

Friday, January 05, 2007

Culture of slavery was fought by Jefferson

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
The U.S Veteran Dispatch

by Ted Sampley




What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad


By Ted Sampley

U.S. Veteran Dispatch

January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.


Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.


The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.


Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.


There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.


Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.


Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.


The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.


Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.


Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.


When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.


Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.


Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.


Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.


In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.


The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.


During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.


In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."


For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.


Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.


Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.


The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.


In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.


During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.


Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."


It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.


Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Why tough cultural laws will send the extremists scurrying out of the country

Treatment has sheik wary of returning home
A dangerous divide is forcing Australian Muslims to abandon their homes, says Sydney cleric Feiz Mohamed in Lebanon reports Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the australian.com
January 06, 2007

AUSTRALIA'S most influential firebrand cleric feels like an alien in his own country.
And Sheik Feiz Mohamed is not alone. He believes a rising anti-Islamic tide has made Muslims wary of their countrymen, forcing at least eight families to abandon their homeland for the Middle East.
From the foothills of his ancestral village in north Lebanon, the man with the most sway over the nation's Islamic youth says five years into the war on terror a dangerous divide exists here.

In a rare interview, Feiz, an Australian citizen, says he is apprehensive about returning home after spending more than 12 months in Lebanon caring for his ailing father.

"Imagine me going to the Opera House and taking photos," he says. "I can't walk through the airport without hundreds of eyes on me. They are like foxes trying to eat sheep.

"Before I left I was at a restaurant in Sutherland (in southern Sydney) with my wife, eating spaghetti, and we were like aliens from Mars. I said, 'Let's get out of here'.

"We are just human beings. I am not saying Australia is negative or not good, I am saying it has changed.

"There are about seven or eight families who have left in the last few months and many more who are planning to go."

Feiz left for Lebanon just before two events that profoundly influenced some Australians' views of Islam - the mass counter-terrorism raids that netted 23 people in Sydney and Melbourne in November 2005 and the ugly race riots at Cronulla, in Sydney's south, one month later.

The former horsebreaker-cum-preacher calls two of the accused terrorists close friends and knew all of the Sydney men arrested. However, he strongly denies claims circling among Sydney's Islamic community that he was urged to leave town by ASIO.

Feiz has continuing links to almost every notable member of Australia's Islamic community and continues to direct his Global Islamic Youth Centre from Lebanon. GIYC is the nerve centre of Islamic youth in Sydney, setting the tone for 4000 youths, their families and fraternities in the city's southwest.

He counts as friends Rabiah Hutchison, whose two sons have been deported from Yemen; Saleh Jamal, who faces trial for attempted murder; and Bilal Khazal, accused of compiling a Jihadi handbook naming Australian officials as assassination targets.

He has been a central figure in most moments of discord, rapprochement and high drama in the Australian Islamic landscape since the September 11 attacks in the US, but the past 12 months has troubled him more than any point during the past five years.

He remains staggered and sceptical of the terrorism charges his friends face and worries about the impact the arrests have made on the Australian psyche.

"Until they have been convicted you cannot say they would (have carried out an attack)," he says. "And, besides them, I do not know anyone in Australia who has the most minute evil intent against Australia, or Australians.

"Islam teaches us you can't detriment the body or limb of Muslims, or non-Muslims.

"If it means you are going to harm someone orally, or physically, it is against Islam and killing one innocent soul is like the killing of all humanity."

He says he and the nation's two other fundamental clerics - Sheik Mohammed Omran in Melbourne and Sydney's Sheik Abdul Salem Mohammed Zoud - offered a guarantee to safeguard their homeland from radicalism and the anger of Muslim youth that simmers over "the evil ways of the American regime".

And he says Australian counter-terrorism agencies are trying hard to build bridges.

"In Australia (the Muslim community is) very moderate, very understanding," Feiz says. "And that goes back to the sheiks themselves. There are no sheiks preaching chaos there. No one is telling people to raise arms against the Australian community. I honestly believe you have nothing to fear.

"You live in a very, very safe place. I think the Australian Government has become a bit over-zealous and that results in a fear within the Australian community, especially among non-Muslims. I have said the same to some of our security agencies and said that this could cause things to get much worse."

The relationship is workable and getting better, despite ongoing issues about cultural sensitivities, Feiz says.

"When your job is to gather intelligence and you have one negative statement from someone who does not hold any position of responsibility within the community, it should not be held up as a benchmark for what is really going on."

Admitting to a strong relationship with security officials, Feiz says: "I believe ASIO and the feds and the (NSW) counter-terrorism team question the wrong people. This has created a misconception for the rest of the community and this is not acceptable."

In his absence, Feiz receives regular phone calls in Lebanon from an ASIO officer in Sydney.

He says his time in the Middle East, especially war-torn Lebanon, has changed many of his perspectives, especially about how the West is perceived and the role it plays in the world's most unstable frontier.

"I think a lot of people worldwide are very oppressed by the American regime," he says.

"We (Muslims) are always looking behind our back and over our shoulder.

"They have created an over-zealous branch of extremism out there. They have to wake up to their evil ways. There have been so many hypocritical deeds done.

"Where is the democracy they claim to uphold? They are talking about the war on terror when they themselves have terrorised the world."

Asked to explain why some Muslims around the world espoused a state of almost perpetual warfare against non-believers, he says they have moved from defensive to offensive roles. "And that is unacceptable to Islam. They may believe that the time for combat has come and that those people are actually fighting us. They are unlearned people, ignorant to the ways of the religion."

The Australian Mufti, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, is not considered a pillar of the radical fraternity, but Feiz offers him qualified support in the wake of his comments late last year in which he described lightly clad women as "meat".

"Taj did not learn from my mistake," he says, referring to his own experience two years ago when he linked a woman's dress sense to her risk of being raped.

"His statement was wrong, but I know what he meant. I don't blame him for what he said, just the way he said it.

"We are trying to prevent women from being harassed and provoked, but we have to be very careful about what we say and the sensitivities of the community.

"Being the Mufti of Australia, he has a big role to play. The sheiks in Australia have done nothing ... but propagate the correct picture of Islam. Maybe from time to time they may have said things they regret, but their intentions have been pure."

He outlines three run-ins with armed police that have raised the hackles of Sydney's Muslim community, the first dating back to the post-September 11 security raids in which weapons were pointed at uncovered women.

More recently, he says Muslim youth have fumed over the treatment of a man caught up in the mass terror raids in November 2005 and the recriminations that followed.

"They held a pistol on his head in Westfield (in central NSW) with his wife beside him and they took him away in front of thousands of people. They let him go that afternoon. That is how extreme things can be.

"Then after that three guys from the GIYC went on a hunting trip near Broken Hill (in far western NSW). They ran out of petrol near a small refinery and asked the guy there if they could have some.

"Within half an hour they were being held to the ground at gunpoint. Raids like this are extremely detrimental to the minds of fair-minded Muslims.

"We understand their jobs and we believe that there is the potential for a problem, but we say to them - be careful how you tackle the issues. At the end of the day, I think that Australia is a very, very safe country.

"There is no panic needed. No one desires any atrocities. I think the over-zealousness of the past couple of years has led to this, but I honestly believe there is nothing there to be afraid of."

Hiding behind the cultural language of religion so they can rape and genocide

He's not calling for "jihad", he's calling for genocide of all black Christians and other non muslims. He's saying to vulnerable young muslim males that they can go to Somalia and rape women all they want and butcher and genocide blacks all they want, while hiding behind the language of religion.



Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri Calls for Jihad in Somalia
FOxNews

A Web video of Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, surfaced Thursday and called on Muslims throughout the Middle East to wage a jihad against Ethiopian forces occupying Somalia.



"You have to use ambushes and mines, and raids and suicidal attacks until you rend and eat your prey as the lion does with his prey," al-Zawahiri declared.



The statement was part of a five-and-a-half minute video produced by the terrorist group's multimedia arm as-Sahab.



In the video titled "Set Out and Support Your Brothers in Somalia," and translated by the SITE Institute, Zawahiri is seen in a still image from a previous release, while his voice calls on Muslims everywhere — but specifically those Yemen, the Arab Peninsula, Egypt, North Africa and Sudan — to participate in a holy war against secular government forces in Somalia.



Zawahiri says Mujahideen must provide Somali Muslims with men, experience, money and advice to defeat the Ethiopian forces, which he refers to as the "slaves of America."

Read more at foxnews.com ...

Thursday, January 04, 2007

A culture that produces sexual sociopaths and psychopaths

From the terrific blog: http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

A VICIOUS MISOGYNY

In "The Boys of the Taliban", Jamie Glazov writes about one particular rule (rule 19) of the new Taliban "code of conduct" for its fighters in Afghanistan:
But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters....

Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule -- and the horrid reality that it represents -- because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality -- and puts her out of mind and sight -- is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions.
Glazov goes on to argue that Islamist terror can be thought of in part, at least, as a response to sexual rage, frustration, and the humiliation of being connected to a "degraded mother." Thus the men in the culture must constantly assert their masculinity, defend their masculine "honor", and strike out in rage against any who "shame" them.

This is apparent in the sexual mutilation of terror victims who are perceived as "inferior" by the Islamists, and on a par with women of their own culture. It is also seen in the Freudian symbolism of the barbaric act of beheading; as well as in the ubiquitous rape of non-muslim women around the world.

To some extent, such behavior has been seen in all cultures that debase or oppress women. In misogynistic cultures (and individuals) there is usually both the revulsion of the "whore" combined with a perverse obsession with, attraction to, and idealization of "perfection" in a woman (the "madonna" complex). In order to be idealized, women must be stripped of any hint of sexuality.
As a culture, the Arab-Islamic world has perfected this "stripping" to a nightmarish art form of shapeless, individualess, blank nothingness.

Misogyny can be defined as an unreasonable fear or hatred of women. Ever since Eve tempted Adam, women have been reviled in many ways and for many overt reasons around the world and in various cultures. They are hated and feared for their bodies, which tempt men to give into their "base" instincts; They are feared and considered "unclean" because of their monthly cycle of bleeding; they are hated for their unique feminine abilities, which are invariably considered malicious--or worse, evil--by the misogynist individual or culture.

There are three basic motivations underlying why men fear/hate/vilify women (and they are not mutually exclusive, but may exist in various combinations or all at the same time) :
-sexual frustration;
-castration anxiety, and
-resentment and anger at being dependent on women, especially the mother.

The idealization of women, on the other hand, originates from the innate desire of all humans, male or female, to return to the perfect union with the mother that each experienced in the womb.

There are also multiple reasons why women might hate other women on both an individual and societal level, and thus are often complicit in their own subjugation in misogynistic societies.

Many women hate or envy other women whose existence lowers their own status with men, i.e., other women who are more attractive than they are either in looks or accomplishment, depending on the cultural expectations. For example, in one culture a woman might attract men because of her beauty; in another because of her purity or religious devotion. A corollary to this is that the aging woman will increasingly become aware of her diminishing attraction to men or usefulness to a society that only values her reproductive capability. This sets up a dynamic tension between old and young women. In all cultures where female genital mutilation occurs, while it is the male-dominated society that mandates it, the operation itself is performed by older women on younger women; and has the direct effect of decreasing the sexual capabilities/responsiveness of the younger--thus "leveling the playing field" by some accounts. Older--"useless" women--can become societal heroes only by embracing the violence and rage of the sexually frutstrated and fearful men.

Needless to say, the family dynamics in viciously misogynic cultures like those dominated by Islamic extremists, create severely impaired girls and boys. It has been noted by many researchers and observers that children of both sexes are routinely physically and sexually abused by male relatives (indeed there are religious rules that designate under what circumstances babies may be used for sexual gratification by adults) . The boys are publicly circumcised and the girls clitoridectomized. Women's behavior becomes the source of all shame and dishonor, and they must be ruthlessly controlled. The degree of control is proportional to the degree of sexual repression and frustration (and hence rage) that is mandated by the culture/religion.

In normal societies, the act of "mothering", which is almost always relegated to the female, may be accomplished by either females or males as long as they provide that early and continual nurturing, acceptance and security that a baby needs. The role of "fathering" can also be taken on either by females or males, particularly to the offspring of the same sex and that role usually begins at about the toddler (age 4 give or take). To raise a healthy child, healthy males and females are essential. But the cultural debasement and humiliation of women has a profound impact on the children.

Male children in societies that demonize or debase women must overemphasize their "maleness" in order to separate from the mother. As grown men, far from being able to mitigate the aggressive impulses of a child, such men will encourage these impulses in order to "prove" to the world at large that they (and later, their sons)have not been "feminized". Cultures where women have extremely low status almost always encourage the development of inadequate, "macho" men, who need to prove their manliness and constantly.

In "Where Have All The Mothers Gone?" I commented about a study which demonstrated the power of "good" mothers --i.e., normal, healthy, functioning and unoppressed by their culture-- in overcoming aggression or "bad" behavior in children. Researchers discovered that "good" mothering was able to prevent aggressive and self-destructive behavior in at-risk monkeys. In human terms, "Good" mothering provides a child with respect, love, and security-- the basic aspects of "nurture" that are essential for normal development.

The findings of this and other landmark research clearly suggest that without an early mothering influence children were much more likely to grow up to be aggressive and antisocial.

From a psychological perspective then, the freedom and empowerment of women in society are absolutely critical because they are responsible for the earliest environmental influences on children--influences that will impact the child throughout his or her life. If the society has little respect for women and regularly demonizes, debases or humiliates them, it will have a profound generational impact. This is why encouraging women's rights around the world should be a high priority in US Foreign Policy.

Women subjected to institutionalized, societal abuse (such as what we saw under the Taliban; and what we see to a greater or lesser extent in almost all Islamic countries--where physical abuse is sanctioned; where women are sexually demonized; where they are deprived of education, as well as physical, social, economic and political freedom) are hardly in a psychological position to be able to provide effective "nurturing" to children.

Women whose own aggressive impulses have been savagely constrained by society and who have few options to sublimate those impulses, are at grave risk of encouraging aggressive and violent "acting out" on the part of their children on their behalf-- especially the male child who must be seriously conflicted about his love for and identification with a lowly-regarded woman.

In other words, such women will hardly prevent inappropriate aggression in their offspring, when such aggression vicariously meets their own needs. And the male children will have to assert their separation and distance from the debased female that is their mother, as aggressively and violently as possible. The father, who might undo some of this early pathology is himself also in the grip of the dysfunctional societal demands, and he must constantly deal with subverting his own normal sexual drives which can only find expression through sanctioned deviancy (as exemplified in Rule 19) and aggression toward women who dare to challenge the societal taboos(i.e., unveiled women, "uppity women", or any infidel women).
Is it any wonder sexual impulses become so perverted and directed toward children? Or that child sexual abuse becomes the only societal outlet for sexuality? Or that the residual aggression is expressed in a barbaric, uncivilized manner?

Family dynamics obviously play an extremely important role in the development of personality, especially in providing values and role-models. The dysfunctional family of Middle Eastern Muslims, where women are hidden and oppressed; prevented from ever being able to grow up normally, while the sexually repressed and enraged men must avoid the shame of the feminine and must aggressively defend his honor and manhood by controlling and debasing anyone who threatens it.

Under the Taliban, which arguably is the most malignant iteration of Islam's dysfunction, women were actively oppressed and beaten for any attempt to express themselves. Even today, there are actual "debates" about this.

Sexuality is an essential part of each of us. The double standards of modesty and behavior encouraged by the current practice of Islam is destructive to the normal development of personality in both males and females. Psychopathic traits in males are societally encouraged, while females are conditioned to be their willing victims. (When women seek to "equal" men by blowing themselves up, you know there is some sort of psychopathy at work--as opposed to "gender liberation"). Also, how will a child grow up normally knowing their mother thinks of them in this way?

A culture that is viciously misogynistic creates both men and women who are severely dysfunctional in almost every sphere of human activity.

Free Site Counter