Surprise! It's a self-serving, dysfunctional organization. "In memoir, ex-Muslim Sister paints an unflattering picture," by Noha El Hennawy for Al Masry Al Youm, January 16 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
As the Muslim Brotherhood strives to project the image of a moderate and democratic political organization, a book featuring the angry account of a former member has hit the market."The Memoirs of a Former Sister: My Story with the Muslim Brotherhood" is the testimony of Intissar Abdel Moneim, an Alexandria-based novelist and author. With a compelling style and sharp language, the book takes the reader on a journey exploring the internal politics of the 83-year-old organization, placing special emphasis on discrimination against female members.
Throughout her work, Abdel Moneim decries the sisters’ internalization of oppression as women are socialized in a way that compels them to accept male dominance within the organization — and the household.
Early in the book, Abdel Moneim condemns what could be interpreted as the Brotherhood’s exploitation of the permissibility of polygamy in Islam.
“One of the areas where the Brothers have exploited the idea of blind obedience and submission is polygamy,” she writes, adding that a brother would take second and third wives for no valid reason. “When the [first] wife complains, a session is held for her where other sisters would remind her of the importance of obedience, patience and submission to God’s will and to [the husband]’s will,” she writes.
To understand the roots of the subjugation of women, Abdel Moneim unpacks the writings of Hassan al-Banna, the group’s late founder. Here, the author summons her courage and puts forth a vehement critique of the group’s canonized leader, who is rarely questioned, even by the most vocal ex-brothers.
Banna's teachings sought to limit women to "catering to their husbands' desires and to reproduction," Abdel Moneim writes.
The book dismisses Banna's dictum that there is no need to invest heavily in girls' education and that women should be trained only to serve as housewives and mothers. Abdel Moneim feels that this sentiment is contradictory to true Islam.
“It is true that Islam says that a woman’s primary role is to raise children, but it does not say that this is her only role and that she should not do anything beyond it. Neither the Koran nor the Sunna [Prophet Mohamed’s sayings and deeds] nor the sayings of the prophet’s companions and successors barred her from learning any sciences. The matter has been left for her to decide, according to her needs and circumstances," writes Abdel Moneim.
Unfortunately, the situation does not need explicit statement in the Qur'an or Sunna for a critical mass of other parameters to make it the logical conclusion of certain attitudes and behaviors. For example, the obsession with control of women (Qur'an 4:34), and the paranoia in Muslim societies about purity and honor work against women's independence.
She goes on to criticize Banna's insistence that men and women should be separated. With a scathingly sarcastic tone, the author argues that Banna’s view portrays humans as if they are mere animals who have little control over their impulses.“You cannot by any logic perceive all people as mere female and male sex organs that roam the streets looking for the moment of intercourse like cats," the book reads. Abdel Moneim attributes Banna’s rigid outlook to his rural background.
This outlook still shapes the group’s perception of women’s roles within the organization and in the society at large. It justifies why the Muslim Sisters' division cannot operate independently from the Brothers, why no woman is admitted into the group's highest bodies, namely the Shura Council and the Guidance Bureau, and why the group will not acknowledge a woman's right to rule, according to the book. [...]
... the author bashes the Brotherhood’s internal dynamics, arguing that it is based on nepotism rather than merit. To substantiate her claim, she refers to her personal experience recounting that she was not easily admitted into the group because she was not the daughter, the sister or the wife of one of the Muslim Brotherhood's heroic or wealthy figures. For both men and women, such family ties are required to facilitate one’s upward mobility within the organization, according to Abdel Moneim.
Meanwhile, the author coins the phrase “the Muslim Brotherhood’s classism” to describe the full submission of rank-and-file members to their leaders. She borrows the analogy put forward by a former Muslim Brotherhood leader who drew parallels between the organization and an electricity-providing company that needs lots of workers (rank-and-file members) and few engineers.
“It is illogical for a worker to bypass his master or demand that his position be improved even if he proves himself,” Abdel Moneim writes. “Otherwise, he will be violating the group’s charter and instilling divisions. This is probably the Muslim Brotherhood’s interpretation of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm.’” [...]
Yet the book has not failed to cause a stir. Earlier this month, the Muslim Brotherhood rushed to sue the privately owned Al-Fagr newspaper for running a sensational review of the book that accused the organization of abusing women sexually and politically....
Is the book on sale in Egypt? If so, how is it being received? Is Intissar still "Alexandria-based"? Have the death threats begun?
Handling the truth is something Muslim males are not good at.
Banna's teachings sought to limit women to "catering to their husbands' desires and to reproduction," Abdel Moneim writes.
How could a pious Muslim ever think such a thing?
The Muslim Brotherhood is just another hack organization respecting cronyism and nepotism, in this instance under religious cover, and one doesn't even have to be an avid supporter of true women's rights (as opposed to the faux women's rights promoted by clueless, bitter and often hypocritical Western feminists) to still realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a gigantic scam by males to dominate females, once again under religious cover. The Muslim Brotherhood is bad all around---for democracy, for equality under the law, for freedom of speech, for freedom of religion and, God knows, for women. Oh yeah, for beer too.
Women of Islam, wake up. This religion will keep you in permanent second-class status to men. Forever. Guaranteed. So leave it. Be careful, of course, but leave it. It's your only complete way out, your only way to realize your full potential.
Someone should lend their copy to Ron Paul.
it is true i am muslim there are many polygamous marriage even here in the west and muslim women are suffering
islam gives more rights to women then previous arabs but chistianity gives all the rights
To understand the roots of the subjugation of women, Abdel Moneim unpacks the writings of Hassan al-Banna, the group’s late founder. Here, the author summons her courage and puts forth a vehement critique of the group’s canonized leader, who is rarely questioned, even by the most vocal ex-brothers.
Banna's teachings sought to limit women to "catering to their husbands' desires and to reproduction," Abdel Moneim writes.
The book dismisses Banna's dictum that there is no need to invest heavily in girls' education and that women should be trained only to serve as housewives and mothers. Abdel Moneim feels that this sentiment is contradictory to true Islam.
.........................
Well, I'd like to applaud Abdel Moneim for her courage.
What she reveals here should come as a surprise to no one.
A few matters, though—This attitude is Hassan al-Banna,'s only at second hand—the original urge is the "Prophet" Muhammed's.
Like so many Muslims—even many of the brave and principled ones—Abdel Moneim cannot believe that the inequities she has suffered are true to her creed, but has to believe they are "contradictory to true Islam".
I also wonder why she was so keen to join the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place. She is—admirably—critical of their oppression of women and the lower classes—does she have the same issues with their murderous hatred and oppression of Copts, apostates, and Jews?
Does she agree with their goal of imposing Shari'ah, and merely believes that Shari'ah can—somehow—be rendered less oppressive towards women?
I hate to put such a brave person on the spot—but I believe these are important questions.
Now, my dear lady, since they will be trying to kill you anyway because of this, why not be hung for a sheep as for a lamb...LEAVE ISLAM!
APOSTASISE.
Come over to the side of Freedom - where monogamy is the ideal.
You can make your own choice of husband - or you can stay unmarried and live on your own, supporting yourself by working, and nobody will ask questions.
If you marry a nice non-Muslim, under *our* laws in the free West your husband is *not* allowed to beat you - if he does, he gets arrested - and he is *not* allowed to rape you and he is most assuredly *not* free to install a second or third or fourth wife, or a passel of concubines, under your roof.
He can't throw you out like a piece of used kleenex, with the triple talaq: however, both you and he have equal access to divorce proceedings, should the marriage break down.
Come on, my dear, what's not to like?
Burn that ghastly Slave Rag and show off your beautiful glossy black Egyptian locks in public. Soak up the sunlight - and the lovely Vitamin D that will improve your health and mood no end.
Come over to our side.
Nawar Fahmi, good to see you posting again.
Have you been able to contact SIOA? What is your situation? There are people here who care.
Unfortunately this is something that is often seen: be it a woman's right to drive, or vote, or take part in daily life in full equal measure and not merely as "the heart of the family", we see adjoined that true Islam says so-and-so. Islam and Muhammad are not critisized directly in any way, only human interpretation and intervention.
And it's much like in the old Eastern Block countries: internal critics were often in opposition to the communist regimes for the less spectacular reason that they saw themselves as the true proponents of true Socialism, being way more towards the left.
thank u for the welcome graveimage. i am not sure what is SIOA u are referring to?
Could women be the achilles heel of islam? It’s worth thinking about.
It's not too surprising that the Taliban burn girls' schools.
What? They'll be wanting the vote next! (sarc)
"Could women be the achilles heel of islam?"
Somehow I doubt it: net bloggers and commenters who identify themselves as women are frequently very abusive and vicious towards the infidel, far more descriptive than their male associates.
In particular "reverts" can be spectacularly inventive - eg. the late Jameela Barnette - but perhaps they have an axe to grind anyway and have found a safe haven.
"...Abdel Moneim feels that this sentiment is contradictory to true Islam."
Oh dear! One of those!
Not out of the woods yet then!
It is surprising that educated women like Intissar Abdel Moneim are not leaving Islam at a faster rate. I guess that Islam's death penalty for apostasy explain much of that...
Leaving Islam is the only ethically sound decision that a Muslim of either gender can make. Muhammad was nothing more than an evil, malignant narcissist. We ex-Muslims know that Islam is the exact opposite of what it claims to be.
It is bizarre that educated Muslim women can continue to overlook all of the cruel and blatantly unjust dictates found in the Qur’an with a clear conscience.
There is no such thing as “Allah”. Muhammad was “Allah”. Muhammad, if he even existed, was simply a severely ill tyrant, nothing more. Keeping women’s rights in mind, just look at the absurdity to be found in the Qur’an…
033.036
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
004.065
But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.
********
And then this...
********
004.034
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
004.011
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females...
002.282
O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.
What a wonderful review written by one of the most radical feminists in Egypt. Interesting that Jihad Watch chooses to only post this because she was talking about the Brotherhood. Try her other articles about Christian women's rights in Egypt...makes your skin crawl.
This book has received really no major clout at all, even though it has been out for quite a while, because it presents nothing new. Anyone who has ever read Banna or Qutub's works can tell that they are pretty radical when it comes to social organization and women's rights and doesn't need this book to understand it or criticize it.
But what this author and many others in Egypt and abroad are missing is that Egyptians aren't voting for the Brotherhood because of Islam, women's rights, minority rights, nor do they seriously care about any of these issues. The Brotherhood has been successful because it deals with the needs of the people on the ground while the liberals sit in their cafes and the government holds parties.
Take for example the current situation: there has been a gasoline shortage for more than a week, natural gas tanks are also in short supply, and a lot of people are having a tough time as the economy suffers. Instead of addressing these issues, the secularists and liberals believe that grinding the country to a halt through crippling protests will make things better, while the Brotherhood is on the ground running hospitals, cleaning streets, educating people, and setting-up factories.
Until the liberal parties begin to understand that it's about action and results, not rhetoric, then their political future will change. As long as the situation remains the same, the Brotherhood's fortunes will continue to rise, unless of course the liberals force their will on the population, which wouldn't be very democratic.
Yes! Amen! You are welcome over here indeed! Everything Dumbledore's Army says is true and furthermore, you will find that the overwhelming majority of free men *are not interested* in hitting women, putting them lower or getting extra wives. Even if you aren't attracted to them physically, they will still be your friends, happy to be your colleagues, helpful neighbors, faithful employees...whatever relationship you may have with them... They show mutual respect. All the best to you if you are reading this and God bless!
@ Unamerican
An amusing post, if what is at stake wasn't so serious!
You say that Abdel Moneim's book is not important; which means you don't think the subjugation of women by Islam is important.
You add that the Brotherhood is 'on the ground running hospitals, cleaning streets, educating people, and setting-up factories.' So, they're practical people, right?
Then why are they bent on destroying the tourist industry that is worth billions of dollars by threatening to impose Islamic Sharia to stop foreign women wearing bikinis on the beach, and other such nonsense?
Also, The Brotherhood has threatened legal action against the independent newspaper that published a glowing review of Abdel Moneim's book. If the book is so unimportant, and the Brotherhood are more involved in the practicalities of life, why are they devoting so much energy to suppress its revealing content?
You're a lying clown! And no one here believes you.
Can you provide a link or two? Icant find her articles. Also just to remind you this site is after all about jihad, which happens to overlap with womens rights
While Christian womens' rights in Egypt may not be ideal, are they forced to "cover up" when going outside? Is there a "Christian Brotherhood" trying to turn Egypt into a Christian state? I think not.
Other than that, I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood dealing with peoples' practical needs might be the critical factor. Seems like they are seen as "in touch" with ordinary people - and because of their religiousness, much less liable to be corrupt. Similarly to Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in Gaza.
The Brotherhood is NOT "bent on destroying the tourist industry that is worth billions of dollars".
It's the Salafists who want to ban alcohol, and implement full Sharia law. While that might also be the long-term, secret objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, at least in public they have stated that they will not take any measures which could harm Egypt's tourist industry.
@ Green Infidel
You wrote about the Brotherhood: 'and because of their religiousness, much less liable to be corrupt. Similarly to Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in Gaza' and that 'the long-term, secret objective of the Muslim Brotherhood' might be to introduce full Sharia law.
You're a couple of light years behind the curve! Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are corrupt beyond imagination. Their leaders are filthy rich from the proceeds of corruption! They have billions of dollars salted away. Their families wield the power that enormous wealth gives them.
Wake up!
In other wordfs, it's your basic radical/cult group.
Women are for sex and ....sex, while the men gather to overthrow the world and are really really ANGRY.
There is a chucklesome article written by an Arab American ex-Muslim women over at Ali Sina's Faith Freedom.org tonight/ this morning:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/the-2nd-pillar-of-islam-prayer-a-waste-of-time/
Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:
One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur'an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way...
The statement continues,
Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.
@An American,
Yes, and under Hitler, German trains ran on schedule. The Nazis were such an organized, caring group of people - just like the Muslim Brotherhood.
"The Brotherhood is NOT "bent on destroying the tourist industry that is worth billions of dollars".
It's the Salafists who want to ban alcohol, and implement full Sharia law. While that might also be the long-term, secret objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, at least in public they have stated that they will not take any measures which could harm Egypt's tourist industry."
Islam says that any form of idolatry - like worshipping artefacts and cultures from the age of Jahiliyya - is kuffar idolatry and goes intentionally against Tawhid (Unity of Allah) and therefore Islam itself. In reality there's little to distinguish Salafi Islam from MB Islam. The MB concept of “moderate Islam” (Islamic ‘principles’ integrated in a 'modernised' legal framework) serves as nothing more than a stepping stone in their quest to gradually strip all semblances of modernity and all pre-Islamic historical remnants from Islamic societies . Islamism necessarily has to include a strategy that works its way up to this point, simply because it is in keeping with the Quran’s intent of abolishing all immoral (infidel) lawmaking and references to everything that is de facto un-Islamic according to the Quran.
Whereas many Muslims are quite easily repelled by crude Salafi discourse, the MB can cover up its intent by professing outwardly their respect for general human rights and modernity, which is decidedly a taqiyya take on things and can be sold to the general public in Egypt, Tunisia,…etc. as a more attractive proposition than the Salafi view. Therefore, the MB step-by-step approach is more suited for imposing Islamic purity than the rather hamfisted Salafi approach, simply because creeping taqiyya is part and parcel of this strategy. The vehement disdain for the broader layers of Muslim society, equally felt by Salafis and the MB alike, will result in the same level of Islamisation in the long run. In the mind of MB and Salafi militants, both infidels-by-default and the Munafiqun (Muslim Quranic hypocrites that retain a desire to cling to any type of Western or Jahiliyya culture) will suffer equally as a consequence. The only difference between both groups is of an eschatological nature, if you like. Said Qutb and Hassan al Banna were deemed to be not orthodox enough in their approach by their Salafi counterparts. A slight difference that is basically academic with regards to the very tangible consequences for both infidels and the Munafiqun alike.
When you say "at least in public they have stated that they will not take any measures which could harm Egypt's tourist industry." , then it seems to me that you are still projecting an awful lot of naive and unwarranted optimism on to the real intentions of the MB for the long term, which seems to indicate that some critics of Islam are fundamentally still unable to disengage themselves totally from the taqiyya "cross-cultural dialogue ruse" of the MB.
MB = Salafism in stages (have a look at all the JW articles relating to the MB's gradualism, for instance)
"Now, my dear lady, since they will be trying to kill you anyway because of this, why not be hung for a sheep as for a lamb...LEAVE ISLAM!
APOSTASISE.
Come over to the side of Freedom - where monogamy is the ideal.
You can make your own choice of husband - or you can stay unmarried and live on your own, supporting yourself by working, and nobody will ask questions.
If you marry a nice non-Muslim, under *our* laws in the free West your husband is *not* allowed to beat you - if he does, he gets arrested - and he is *not* allowed to rape you and he is most assuredly *not* free to install a second or third or fourth wife, or a passel of concubines, under your roof.
He can't throw you out like a piece of used kleenex, with the triple talaq: however, both you and he have equal access to divorce proceedings, should the marriage break down.
Come on, my dear, what's not to like?
Burn that ghastly Slave Rag and show off your beautiful glossy black Egyptian locks in public. Soak up the sunlight - and the lovely Vitamin D that will improve your health and mood no end.
Come over to our side."
Very well said. So many times, we take already take things like these for granted, it's good to be reminded of our blessings.
I did say SEEN as being "much less liable to be corrupt". Laughable to you or me, but how does it look to the average Egyptian Muslim, bombarded by Islam 24/7 through the TV, radio and call to prayer? Will he/she see that a religious Muslim can be corrupt - when the MB are running hospitals and clinics??
"MB = Salafism in stages" - that MAY BE the case, but for the "current" stage at least, they have stated that they don't want to harm the tourist industry, and that for this reason they won't be banning alcohol.
So comments saying that the MB want to "destroy the tourist industry" are inaccurate - at least based on their public statements.
I'm not "naive" or falling for any Taqiyya - but it's good to keep comments accurate, wouldn't you agree? That's all I meant to say, in any case.
I always considered myself on the left, still embracing multiculturalism as long as the religion or culture doesn't directly or indirectly incite or cause harm against innocent people, like Islam and all its followers.
So is it possible to be a left-wing democrat, and still completely agree with the far-right about Islam?
"I always considered myself on the left, still embracing multiculturalism as long as the religion or culture doesn't directly or indirectly incite or cause harm against innocent people, like Islam and all its followers."
Just to make an obvious clarification, I'm not stating stating that Islam and Muslims are "innocent people," but just the opposite.
the wives do the cooking. they know the poisons. they know the "secrets" of the husband. they have power and are able to disturb a man's sleep.
off topic..l dont know why l am D now.. l was lkeevy before this.. then l could not get on.. and went through yahoo and now l see there is another D????
anyhow glad to see some Arab women telling the world about the evils of islam!
Nawar Fahmi wrote: "islam gives more rights to women then previous arabs but chistianity gives all the rights."
May I point out its even better than that. Neither Islam nor Christianity "give" rights. The rights already belong to you.
That is why in the Constitution of the United States they are called inalienable rights. Inalienable means “ not able to be transferred or taken away, because they are protected by law". This is exactly why we here in the United States insist on keeping religion (and that means all religion) out of our government.
Accurate, you say ???
"MB = Salafism in stages" - that MAY BE the case, but..."
Sorry, but that has to be "that WILL be the case", no buts about it.
Harking back to your previous comment, "While that might also be the long-term, secret objective of the Muslim Brotherhood...", that has to be "While that WILL be the long-term, secret objective of the Muslim Brotherhood", point final.
Everything you DO say, is mere conjecture, unverified hypothesis, wishful thinking...etc. The very use of the modal verbs "may" and "might" in your discourse are indicative of a necessity you seem to feel to put a hypothesis forward that has a certain level of hesitancy and uncertainty contained within, but still you try to challenge me to present this as dead cert accuracy ??? Accuracy, no less ?
Who are you trying to kid ? Both the Salafi movement and MB itself have a history all of their own, the words of their leaders are directly related to what goes on inside their mind. The very foundations of Islam are sacred to them and can not be messed with. Link their intent and their words with the foundations of Islam and you can draw up a viable hypothesis that can be corroborated by facts in the long term. THAT is what constitutes theoretical realism, not what you are doing.
And to top it all off, you conclude with "So comments saying that the MB want to "destroy the tourist industry" are inaccurate - at least based ON THEIR PUBLIC STATEMENTS. I'm not "naive" or falling for any Taqiyya."
More fool you ! Why don't you come down from cloud nine ?
You are a bit too green behind the ears for your own good, Green Infidel.
OT
As of today, I have joined the CounterDevolutionaries.
Let me introduce myself. I am the CounterDevolutionary Pokermutt and my enemies are the Left and Islam.
Explanolite: the Left will make the virtuous, slaves of the unearners.
As for Islam and "The Arab Thing", we know about that such that our equanimity is forever gone.
Double OT
Prepare the Greek choruses of old with their monotonic intonation devoid of gush and sentimentality.
The Chrous
"It was as he wished, he died well."
Support the CounterDevolution.
from 1keevy..
you wonder why muslim men persecute their women and non-Muslims..and then you have the brain dead leftist women supporting them and even some so called educated leftist become a trophy muslimah?
It sounds as though she was in search of utopia - but found the reality of the religion - when you submit control - you are controlled by others.
And that the same pecking order that exists on the outside of society - exists inside.
::
Those Muslim women want freedom - but they want to show that they are above the likes of the 'wheel' that Western women 'invented' in gaining their freedom.
So that their so-called own way, means that they use the go-between of Islam and its 1000 short years of history - to arrive at the freedom - as this woman proves by writing her book - and acting and thinking independently - that she already has.
You is free!
We have to listen to babble about things like, what Muhammad's granddaughter or his first [Jewish] wife, did or didn't do - as their justification for the reason to be free - so that they bind themselves.
It was interesting that she pointed out that the Brotherhood women - would be used to control each other. But this is what you will find in the Muslim world - women controlling others - and I believe that this is a greater factor - in Muslim women's freedom - than the men's control of them -
- in the Muslim world the women limit themselves.
The only difference is that under western law - the use of force against women is outlawed, in the Muslim world a man can beat his wife - the electric cord being the favourite chastising tool across the region, or even kill his wife - all within the law.
When Muslim women give birth, they single out the boys as superior and the girls as inferior - and so they create their own reality...
...which is entirely belief based - but the world is presenting a different picture - that is hard to ignore. One of free and equal people, regardless of gender, race or religion. But in the Islamic world they take exception to gender and religious equality. And sadly for them, the rest of the world doesn't care that much what Muhammad thought.
Supremacist ideas - of man over women or one religion over another - are a spent force.
Good post. Thoughtful and thought-provoking. And i agree with your closing statement that "supremacist ideas- of man over woman or one religion over another- are a spent force", unfortunately, the whole foundation and structure of what has been needs to be dismantled; those foundations run deep and the structure is Babel-esque. And it's fundamentalism of any kind that needs to be addressed, not just the islamic version.
Alas, the muslimahs' road to something like 'equality' is thus a long and arduous one.
De-programming the aquiescent-psyche of the muslimah, and the macho-supremacist nature of the muslim-male is a task of monumental-proportion that will take decades to produce any hint of change.
In the mean-time, the scripturally-driven horror and madness continues as the west yawns itself awake.
Let's take a look again at the comment I originally replied to, from Buraq:
"Then why are they bent on destroying the tourist industry that is worth billions of dollars by threatening to impose Islamic Sharia to stop foreign women wearing bikinis on the beach, and other such nonsense?"
Now, from my reply you deduce:
"Everything you DO say, is mere conjecture, unverified hypothesis, wishful thinking...etc. "
Yeah - everything is mere conjecture... unless you're able to look into the future. Tell me Anush, are you a fortune-teller?? If not, how do you know that future any more than me?! (and how do you know I don't know it?!)
At least, stop taking the thread off-topic!
Once again, the parallel of Islamic principles with the profile of domestic violence abusers is apparent. From the decades of study of domestic violence in the U.S., the dynamic of the DV "relationship" is of predator/prey and the total domination, control, and abuse of the victim. The DV abuser sees the victim as merely an extension of himself, thus only to support his own views and to cater to his own needs regardless of the needs of the victim. The DV abuser is typically emotionally inadequate and insecure and resents the destructive domination/control of the opposite sex parent. The DV victim is typically conditioned to accept the blame for the abuse, the abuse often starting in the home of origin. The DV abuser typically chooses prey that has been previously abused (conditioned) or is vulnerable to such conditioning because of some tragedy or world view. Although the courtship of a DV abuser often starts out charming and solicitous, the victim being starved for affection and validation, affection is gradually (depending on the situation) becomes the carrot which is replaced mostly with the stick. Resistance brings more and more abuse, and the DV abuser will typically do as much as society will let him get away with, thus the keeping up of appearances/rationalizing the abuse as if merely in response to the victim. Most DV victims are killed when they are trying to escape their abusers, and it takes an average of seven attempts for a DV victim to get enough help and/or to de-condition enough to get away from a DV abuser.
In Islam, women are seen as "deficient" in intellect and lacking in religion, as propounded by Mohammad. Women are conditioned to unconditionally obey men and the Qur'an gives men free reign to beat their wives into submission to their every whim (merely for "fearing" disobedience is rationalization for abuse) and Mohammad declared men would NOT be questioned as to why they beat their wives. Women are ONLY treated with respect when they are fighting and dying in jihad, but even that is in obedience to men. Female suicide bombers are often gang-raped and then given the option to be stoned/honor-killed as "adulterous" or "fornicators," or have their faces mutilated in what is called a "moonie" (sliced from ear to mouth) which is a sign to Muslim men that they can rape, abuse, and kill her on sight. Women are not allowed to speak in their own defense regarding accusations of sexual impropriety or acts, and can be "legally" (Sharia law) stoned to death merely on the accusation of impropriety by a jealous husband, anyone who supports him, and an Imam. Parents are given permission under Sharia law (which enforces Islamic principles) to kill their children if they embarrass their Muslim honor or disrespect Islam/Islamic principles such as male dominance. Women can be killed for apostasy, which definition includes leaving their Muslim husbands as it is a rebellion against Islam and a "disgrace" to her family.
I deduce. You assume.
"Then why are they bent on destroying the tourist industry that is worth billions of dollars by threatening to impose Islamic Sharia to stop foreign women wearing bikinis on the beach, and other such nonsense?"
Now that, Greeny Weeny Infidel, is a correct question coming from Buraq. An intelligent question, even. And I have given a correct answer to that question, based on facts and heaps of knowledge, which can be deduced correctly from scrutinizing the core tenets of Islam itself and the history of different Jihad movements.
Your self-proclaimed powers of deduction are piss poor, i.e. non-existent, because you don't amass the necessary knowledge to formulate a correct answer to such a question. If you want to make an informed deduction, you have to put two and two together. And even more ridiculous, you are contradicting yourself without you even realizing it ! Which is consequently the same position Western leaders seem to take regarding these so-called Arab Spring movements, and consequently they are increasingly proved wrong as we speak ! There are no fortunes to tell with regards to where Islam is taking the world, btw, as is so often proved by facts whenever and wherever on this planet : Pakistan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, et al. Now, I suppose that's all proving me wrong, like you say (?)
The mere fact that I have drawn attention to your incapabilities there seems to be enough of a reason to want to make me look stupid and subsequently claim that I am going off-topic in a last ditch effort to save face, but that is not going to wash with me.
The simple fact is that you don't think things through before you speak up. That's juvenile to say the least.
Green Infidel wrote:
The Brotherhood is NOT "bent on destroying the tourist industry that is worth billions of dollars".
It's the Salafists who want to ban alcohol, and implement full Sharia law. While that might also be the long-term, secret objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, at least in public they have stated that they will not take any measures which could harm Egypt's tourist industry.
..................................
Dear Green Infidel, *the* fundamental tenet of the Muslim Brotherhood is the imposition of Shari'ah law. I recentl7y read Sayyid Qutb's loathsome "Milestones". Qutb is one of the founding thinkers of the MB.
The MB may be willing to wage the "slow Jihad" now, for strategic reasons—i.e., not to overly alarm the West and the few genuine democrats and "moderates" in Egypt—but their goals *have not changed*.
The West is eager to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood as "moderate Islamists"—whatever that might mean—but that does not mean any of us should buy into it.
Please don't take my word for it. If you see what the Muslim Brotherhood has said—both historically and since the revolution—most of their statements are *anything* but reassuring, especially those made in Arabic for a Muslim audience.
More crap from the absurdly named "An American":
This book has received really no major clout at all, even though it has been out for quite a while, because it presents nothing new. Anyone who has ever read Banna or Qutub's works can tell that they are pretty radical when it comes to social organization and women's rights and doesn't need this book to understand it or criticize it.
.....................................
Odd that this Muslim apologist would actually admit how dedicated the Muslim Brotherhood is to the oppression of women...of course, he only takes that stance to declare this a "non-story".
More:
But what this author and many others in Egypt and abroad are missing is that Egyptians aren't voting for the Brotherhood because of Islam, women's rights, minority rights, nor do they seriously care about any of these issues.
The Brotherhood has been successful because it deals with the needs of the people on the ground while the liberals sit in their cafes and the government holds parties.
.....................................
The usual—"An American" claims that no one really cares about anything the Muslim Brotherhood actually stands for. I call this arguing from economic determanism—in other words, the Marxist argument that econmics trumps everything.
Two problems with this argument: firstly, *it is not true*. Many people have priorities other than the economic, and vote accordingly.
Secondly, the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is some sort of supremely practical organization concerned with human needs—well, this is just laughable.
More:
Take for example the current situation: there has been a gasoline shortage for more than a week, natural gas tanks are also in short supply, and a lot of people are having a tough time as the economy suffers.
.....................................
And *why* is the Egyptian economy suffering? Primarily because investment and tourism have dropped through the floor in Egypt, because people are frightened of the effects of Islamization—the very Islamization backed by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yet more:
Until the liberal parties begin to understand that it's about action and results, not rhetoric, then their political future will change. As long as the situation remains the same, the Brotherhood's fortunes will continue to rise, unless of course the liberals force their will on the population, which wouldn't be very democratic.
.....................................
I see "An American" continues to push the idea that Shari'ah states make for better economies than liberal democracies, which rather flies in the face of reality.
As for the ominous reference to liberals 'forcing their will on the population', nothing could be more ludicrous. It is Shari'ah which applies force, not liberal democracies.
His whitewash is just ridiculous, from beginning to end. "An American" is based in Cairo, and must be thrilled to see that once culturally rich place slide into the darkness of the 7th century.
Did he enjoy the burning of the Institute d’Egypte last month? Because it is likely there will be much more book burning to come...
Nawar Fahmi wrote:
thank u for the welcome graveimage. i am not sure what is SIOA u are referring to?
..............................
Hi, Nawar. I was referring to the first thread where you posted.
SOIA (Stop Islamization of America) helps people who are at risk leaving Islam.