Today, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day in a positive and loving manner, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo Islamists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the Left and Islamic Supremacism is formed.
The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamic states.
This year, for example, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has, as always, banned Valentine’s Day for promoting “immorality, nudity and indecency.” Pakistani television and radio stations are disallowed from mentioning the event — because of a court order the Islamabad High Court issued last year. No one in society, from an official level to any public place, can even hint that they might be celebrating, let alone thinking about, the day.
Pakistan views Valentine’s Day as an “insult” to Islam. In the past, Valentine’s Day activities in the Islamic country were disrupted by Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, but in recent years the state and courts have involved themselves. Back on Valentine’s Day in Pakistan in 2013, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the Day of Love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day had “spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, declared that the organization would not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our own way.” Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in Jamat-e-Islami, calls Valentine’s a “shameful day.”
These Islamic forces in Pakistan cannot, of course, no matter how hard they try, completely succeed in preventing couples from showing love to each other on this special day, and so many Pakistanis still cryptically celebrate Valentine’s Day and exchange presents in secret.
As always, several cities across Muslim-majority Indonesia are prohibiting people from celebrating Valentine’s Day. Last year, for instance, in the city of Surabaya, a group of school students, which included many girls wearing the hijab, denounced the day. In Aceh province every year, Muslim clerics issue stern warnings to Muslims against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), has stated that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He has stressed that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can only imagine what happens to the guilty parties.
In Muslim-dominant Malaysia, while Islamic religious leaders and officials warn people against celebrating Valentine’s, the group The National Muslim Youth Association consistently issues a yearly pre-Valentine’s Day message in which it demonizes the day and specifically directs females not to use emoticons and perfume. Malaysia’s State mufti chief assistant Mat Jais Kamos is habitually mindful of issuing warnings about Valentine’s — and that is why, in 2014, a few days beforehand, he ordered young people to stay clear of celebrating the Day of Love: “The celebration emphasizes the relationship between two individuals rather than the love between family members or married couples,” he affirmed, and department officials backed up his command by distributing leaflets to remind citizens of the 2006 ban on Valentine’s Day issued by the state fatwa council.
Valentine’s Day is also also outlawed in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Under the Islamic regime in Iran, any sale or promotion of Valentine’s Day related items, including the exchange of gifts, flowers and cards, is illegal. Iran’s “morality” police consistently warn retailers against the promotion of Valentine’s Day celebrations, sternly ordering shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day.
In Saudi Arabia, the morality police consistently punish the slightest hint of Valentine’s Day celebrations. The Kingdom and its religious police officially issue stern warnings that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. Daniel Pipes has documented how the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year. Indeed, the Saudi religious police outlaw the sale of all Valentine’s Day items, forcing shopkeepers to remove roses, all red items and numerous other gifts.
Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented:
We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.
Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran and Saudi Arabia are clearly carrying the torch for the Indonesian Ulema Council in Dumai, Riau, and for the Education, Youth and Sport Agency in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, both of which issue a dire warning each year to people against celebrating Valentine’s Day, stating that the Day of Love “is against Islam.” This is because, as the Indonesian Ulema Council 2011 judgment explained, Valentine’s Day takes young people into a “dark world.”
In Islamic Uzbekistan, several universities are very conscious of that dark world, habitually make sure that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.
Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.
In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their Islamist allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout many Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist, racist, classist, sexist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women — and push them into spheres of powerlessness.
As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.
So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and Islamists? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?
The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.
The highest objective of both Islam and the Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. As we are well aware, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.
The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamic) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with love-seeking individuals who prioritize their own individual agency and devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because leftist believers, deep down, viscerally hate the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” they champion the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes they worship.
The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.
Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that therefore overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.
This is exactly why, forty years ago, as David Horowitz and Peter Collier demonstrate in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign:
Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.
Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.
It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, North Vietnam and many other communist countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s yearning for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. As I have demonstrated in United in Hate, the Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.
This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling is and engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the hijab “sexy”. And it should be no surprise what solution Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must veil themselves.
Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.
And so perhaps it is precisely on reflecting on Valentine’s Day that we are reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with the ugly and pernicious Unholy Alliance that seeks to destroy our civilization.
This day reminds us that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light.
That arsenal is love.
And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi Islamo-Fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and tortured their victims. And no ISIS Jihadist or Feminazi will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.
Love will prevail.
Long Live Valentine’s Day.
Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.
*
To get the whole story on Islam’s and the Left’s war on private love, see Jamie Glazov’s book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror:

FYI says
Love will certainly prevail.Love is the basis of the Judeo-Christian God.
allah,unfortunately doesn’t subscribe to it.
The entire contents of the Bible from Genesis to the Apocalypse can be conflated to the 2 chief commandments of God.
Love is a concept that allah and islam completely missed….resulting in this loveless,fear-generating parody of God called allah.
allah must have been out the day when God gave the Commandments{allah missed the 2 most important ones:they are not found anywhere in islam or the koran.How he missed them and Why they are missing in islam are interesting questions to ask}
So the entire contents of the Biblical narrative,the basis of the Jewish and Christian concept of God is based on these 2 Commandments.
The two Chief commandments of God{Love of God,love of fellow man} are defined as being so important that..
“The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets depend on these 2 commandments”
Matthew 23 v 37-40
And yet It seems that allah COMPLETLY MISSED “the whole law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets”.. didn’t he in his “perfect” book?
allah says in koran 5 v 51 that muslims must not “take Jews and Christians for friends”;isn’t THAT the denial of the Second Chief Commandment…”love thy neighbor” ?How did allah miss those all-important ,essential 2 chief commandments?
But then if allah was the same as the Biblical God he and his muslims would probably love Israel….respect the Jews and the Christians …and actually obey God’s Commandments…and understand Biblical prophecy…..
dhans says
Great comment! I would also include the Father/Child paradigm of Christianity in this as well, as this also speaks greatly to what our love of God is, and it’s hierarchical relationship to the structure of our own families and societies. As a child of God, we are not perfect, but the father and his eternal and everlasting love always brings us back despite our flaws. We wish to improve ourselves because of the father’s love, not out of fear of his retribution ( Remember: What was central to the message of Jesus is never acts of faith, but love God with all your heart and love your neighbor).
Islam totally represents the centralized control that the left seeks. No love, just obedience. I can only imagine how totally dysfunctional the society is that the left and Islam will create. It never ceases to amaze me that ideologies that on the surface that are so different seemingly find each other united in common cause. Satan seems very real to me when I contemplate this. I am not worried however, because love for your fellow soldier is what creates the greatest armies in the world, not fear.
Save Europe says
Well let’s be honest – they are Satan worshippers.
Haller says
Hurrah. It’s also the twenty ninth anniversary of the start of WWIII? you know, when Ayatollah issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie
for publishing The Satanic Verses. The umma found it’s voice by staging the first uncontained days of rage across the globe. It’s been downhill all the way since. As surely as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand ultimate led to WW1, Feb 14 1989 is the departure date for the rebirth of the Islamic push against the West.
Rob says
As an Orthodox Jew, I will not ever celebrate St. Valentine’s Day. As touching and romantic as the story of St. Valentine is and as innocuous as the commercialized practices of the Hallmark holiday day are, the holiday, like Halloween, originates from a religion that is not mine. But I would never try to suppress it’s celebration by others (save for my own children).
Islam is fundamentally intolerant of the religions, and the Left unwittingly rides the coat-tails of Islamic intolerance, to their own eventual demise.
lebel says
Don’t worry, no one cares that you don’t celebrate Valentine’s day. If you were Muslim it would be a whole other story.
lebel says
I honestly think there is a double standard. I honestly think if a Muslim were to come on jihadwatch and say that he was against Valentine’s day , there would be a totally different response.
CRUSADER says
Lebel,
It’s just that Muslims want to conquer (physically conquer) the rest of us….
….and there is the dishonesty of Muslims inherent to their creed, as well…
So, it is natural and prudent for the rest of us to take note of a Jew but to
be wary of a Muslim…due to the ill intent within Islam toward Non-Muslims.
Therein is laid the difference, and good reason for distinguishing, and yes, discriminating.
…as in having discriminating tastes….being able to know the difference and why.
JawsV says
Jews aren’t mass-murdering innocent people worldwide. Muslims are. Get the difference, Muslim?
LeftisruiningCanada says
“I honestly think if a Muslim were to come on jihadwatch and say that he was against Valentine’s day , there would be a totally different response.”
If he said it as nicely and respectfully as Rob, there would a very similar response.
Someone might mention to him that it would be good if more of his co-religionists had the same tolerant attitude.
If Mr H Muslim came on here with condemnation and curses, then you might see a totally different response, honestly.
Honestly lebel, you know all this already. Honestly.
6woods says
Bullshit, lebel. The point is that muslims try to violently shove their beliefs down everyone else’s throat and dictate what other people do. Jews don’t. Hindus don’t. Buddhists don’t. If muslims would just mind their own goddamned business, there’d be no reason for Jihadwatch, and everyone could just live their lives in relative peace. Is that so bloody hard to understand?
Ren says
No 6woods, it is so easy to understand. It is as you say. Only Muslims force their ideology on others, nobody else does that.
It is so easy to get that !
StellaSaidSo says
lebel, there is a difference between choosing not to celebrate something, and forcing others to celebrate or not celebrate it. I’m sure you ‘get’ this, but your ideological filter prevents you from admitting it, even to yourself.
gravenimage says
What crap from lebel. Rob says that he is not trying to stop anyone else from celebrating Valentine’s Day–whereas, Jaime Glazov has numerous examples of Muslims doing just that.
gravenimage says
By the way, there was someone else who did not celebrate Valentine’s Day on the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan bans Valentine’s Day for promoting ‘nudity and indecency’” thread, and replies to him were polite, as well.
No one *has* to celebrate Valentine’s Day, or any other holiday–our issue is is with Muslims violently *preventing* people from celebrating.
lebel is just pretending this is not so.
Tjhawk says
Google up: snarky muslim valentines cards
See what the a$$ho£€$ at buzzfeed have got going to celebrate the day.
Don’t go there unless you have a strong stomach. Considering all that was written in this post, it will truly turn your stomach.
CRUSADER says
Thanks for the suggestion.
Snarky Muslim Valentines Cards
are a hoot!
Perusing the images now…. Hilarious….and true to form !
Tjhawk says
True to form is right. You know where I first heard about these? NPR! HaHa
lebel says
“So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and Islamists? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?”
To be fair it’s not just the evil Muslims and their leftist allies, other people also want to protect their culture from foreign influences:
In 2010, the Russian region of Belgorod enforced a ban on Valentine’s Day after the local governor, Yevgeny Savchenko, claimed it went against Russian cultural traditions.
Source: http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/14/places-celebrating-valentines-day-banned-7309754/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
Some Hindu nationalists are also against the practice and it’s not exactly popular among orthodox Rabbis either. But OK let’s keep the focus exclusively on Islam because its jihadwatch.
6woods says
You’re right, lebel. The focus of JIHADWATCH is islam. JIHAD=ISLAM=JIHAD. Get it now? This site’s raison d’etre is ugly Islam. Gawd, you’re thick.
StellaSaidSo says
Indeed, 6woods. One wonders sometimes how they manage to walk upright.
Carolyne says
We are not exactly sure that they walk upright, are we?
gravenimage says
More apologia for Muslim savagery from the appalling lebel.
Hellzhound says
So why is it ok for everyone else except western civilization to protect their culture from foreign influences? Christian countries should be banning islam to protect their culture and traditions from extermination by islam, since that is the explicit goal of islam.
MFritz says
Marry a muslim and move to a muslim country to show how truly believe in what you say, Jane Fonda.
Indiana Tom says
She could always pose on an anti-aircraft gun.
CRUSADER says
Excellent article.
Love to all….
….almost all….
…okay, most everybody, except for….
CRUSADER says
How about “Happy Valentines” to the 3%ers out there!
You know who you are! And how we cherish you! Kudos!
CRUSADER says
But, JAY BOO, the FemiNazis look sooooooo cute in their pink Vavoom caps.
utis says
Good ol’ Hanoi Jane, the great-great-granma of virtue signalling. All these decades she’s been preaching to the youth to give up their advantages, share the poverty, and fight racism to the death. Yet she’s always been for herself: privileged daughter of a famous movie star, wife of influential men (I wonder if she dropped Tom Haydn because his political star was fading?) and of course, a millionaire.
I wonder if her V-Day righteousness springs from a lack of admirers for has-been hotties.
CRUSADER says
You’d have thought that Ted Turner would’ve straightened her out.
But then again, her mother did commit suicide when Jane was a teenager, so perhaps that brought about much trauma which affected her psyche…
and she never got her head screwed in right, despite being screwed so many other ways….
Indiana Tom says
She should really know about white privilege as she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth.
Carolyne says
Fonda has had so much work done on her face, I couldn’t be sure who was in that picture. Good plastic surgery, though.
Matjaž Horvat says
Interesting. On the other hand, there’s this: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/02/the-burdensome-myth-of-romantic-love
‘The Western fixation on romantic love creates a crushing burden for mere mortals. It engenders a powerful myth regarding love, courtship, and marriage: that a fallible human partner can not only share our passions but sate our existential yearnings. Contemporary couples expect much more from marriage than it can realistically deliver, a phenomenon noted by social psychologists. As Eli Finkel of Northwestern University observes, “most of us will be kind of shocked by how many expectations and needs we’ve piled on top of this one relationship.”’
gravenimage says
Oh, good grief. The idea that love exists is a burden is ludicrous. No healthy person expects their love to quell all existential concerns. No even somewhat mature person expects this.
In fact, demanding that people abandon love is the real burdon.
CRUSADER says
Exactly. It’s about the journey and the maturing. And a little bit of fun with experience and about opening up, along the way.
gravenimage says
Exactly, CRUSADER.
gravenimage says
Are you serious, Jay Boo? Firstly, the idea that all women demand fresh roses is just ridiculous. I never have.
And I am an ethical vegetarian, and very much attuned to suffering–but I have to tell you that plants do not suffer if cut. Do you *really* believe you are causing suffering every time you slice a tomato or bite into an apple?
And the idea that Valentine’s Day is so expensive that if you celebrate it you are neglecting your children’s future is just silly. I did not have roses this Valentine’s Day, but I checked Amazon–roses there on Valentine’s Day were $44, including delivery. They were $20 at my local upscale supermarket, and just about $12 at the guys who set up stands just for the holiday on streetcorners.
If this amount of money is derailing your children’s future, then you can probably barely afford to feed your kids, and you have problems much greater than whether to celebrate Valentine’s Day or not.
For myself, I bought a nice card for my husband–less than $15. I made one of his favorite meals–one where the costs of ingredients are not much higher than that of most meals, but which is quite labor intensive. Then I lit a couple of red candles. That’s it. Really lovely, but not exaclty breaking the bank.
If there are some women who fit the cliche of Valentine’s Day monsters who demand not just cards, flowers, and chocolates, but expensive jewelry and other gifts, then there are likely more problems with the relationship than just what to buy for Valantine’s Day.
Of course, some people have huge demands for other holidays like Christmas and birthdays, as well–that does not mean that we outlaw all celebrations.
And I *know* you know enough about Islam to know that banning such celebrations does not end selfishness or demands–Muslims believe they have the right to rob Infidels, to take Jizya from them, and even to enslave them–and to take their lives if they resist.
This is far worse, surely, than even the greediest Valentine’s Day celebrant?
Champ says
Hubby and I have been married for just over 30 years and he *always* makes Valentine’s Day special for both of us. Before he left for work today he set out some gifts for me, so when I awoke I was greeted by a beautiful orchid, tons of chocolate, a beautiful card, and tonight we’re going to our favorite Thai restaurant. He enjoys making days like this special, and I never grow tired of being shown love today and everyday.
So nonsensical and ridiculous to hate on Valentine’s Day. My husband sees it as another opportunity to make me feel special and loved–isn’t that the point?
islam is replete with hate, so of course they hate Valentine’s Day. But c’mon liberals–not you, too!
StellaSaidSo says
Indeed, Champ, the point is to make one’s significant other feel loved and appreciated. Enjoy your special St V’s day dinner!
Carolyne says
Before my husband passed away, every Valentine’s day I would receive the number of pink roses as the years we had been married. Toward the end, that was a lot of roses. Love exists. Only those who have never experienced it think otherwise.
gravenimage says
Carolyne, I’m so sorry you lost your husband.
This sounds like a lovely tradition you had with him!
gravenimage says
That sounds lovely, Champ!
Right now, I’m taking a break from making my husband his favorite meal–and he does lovely, thoughtful things for me all the time.
There is no love in Islam–but we can celebrate it here!
Champ says
Thank you Stella and Graven! Happy Valentine’s Day to you both!! ❤
CRUSADER says
Champ, congratulations. Some people recognize that you are indeed a champion. 😉
Champ says
Crusader, thank you for your kind words!! ✿
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Champ says
Thank you dear, Graven! ❤
Indiana Tom says
Not as much difference between Hanoi Jane and Jihad Johnny as you might think. They actually have the same goals, but just different religions.
Eric jones says
For the fake Left and the Islamist there can be no room in the heart for love, only for hate. Yes. Long live Valentine’s day.
Eric
Lydia Church says
Yes, the Bible verses about love are many!
And you know what else is interesting, the tyranny in Orwell (1984) did not like romantic love either!
So that is Orwellian also.
gravenimage says
The Qur’an–which I am rereading right now–mostly talks about what “Allah” does *not* love (mostly Infidels).
There is no love in Islam–or any other totalitarian creed.
Haller says
Notice, there ain’t much room for love in Islam. Just S-U-B-M-I-S-S-I-O-N. All the fun comes after you die.
gravenimage says
And that is only “fun” if you like raping virgins for an eternity…
gravenimage says
Hating Valentine’s
……………………..
Fine and important article by Jamie Glazov. Totalitarianism hates Love.
Yes–Love will prevail–but this is something we have to fight for.
Happy Valentine’s Day to Jaime Glazov and everybody else here at Jihad Watch!
Jamie Glazov says
Thank you so much. Happy Valentine’s!!
gravenimage says
Hope you and yours had a wonderful Valentine’s Day, Mr. Glazov!
Always appreciate your contributions to the Counter Jihad, both here at Jihad Watch and elsewhere.
Bernice says
Oh, sure. Jane Fonda. Let’s see — she should probably be getting out of jail just about now, the traitorous monster. A shout-out to the vet who bought one of her books and stood in the autographing line to get close enough to spit in her face. Good on you, buddy. Hey, if she doesn’t like Valentine’s Day, it must be something special. Happy Valentine’s Day, all! Let’s celebrate it in the name of Hanoi Jane.
dumbledoresasrmy says
“…no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that therefore overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive…”.
Does eros counter the totalitarian state *only* because “it dares to serve itself”, or even because it ‘overcomes the instinct for self-preservation”? Or because of something else? In its holiest form it indeed overcomes ‘self-preservation’ because it takes the lover beyond him or herself, by showing them the true form of something that is other than the self. Something that is discussed at length, and brilliantly, in Charles Williams’ book about Dante, “The Figure of Beatrice”.
Eros points beyond itself toward the divine. As Williams says, of Dante’s vision of Beatrice, he saw “something like the glory of god” coming toward him in the streets of the city. He saw that ordinarly little Catholic Italian girl, Beatrice Portinari, shining with the glory of God… quite rightly, because *all* human beings are *meant* to reflect the glory of God, even if a great deal of the time they fail miserably, and even despite the marring caused by sin. Williams’ contention is that in love, the lover is granted a true vision: the beloved as she – or he – is intended / created to be and as they will be, redeemed. Their created-and-redeemed beauty; which is in fact the beauty intended for all human beings, by the loving Creator and Redeemer. And the beloved becomes, in that beauty, the ‘God-bearer’; the encounter of lovers is meant to point them both back with redoubled joy and thanksgiving toward God the life-giver who created them both and exhibited them to each other.
And then there is the Song of Songs, chapter 8, verses 6 and 7:
שִׂימֵנִי כַחוֹתָם עַל-לִבֶּךָ, כַּחוֹתָם עַל-זְרוֹעֶךָ–כִּי-עַזָּה כַמָּוֶת אַהֲבָה, קָשָׁה כִשְׁאוֹל קִנְאָה: רְשָׁפֶיהָ–רִשְׁפֵּי, אֵשׁ שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה. מַיִם רַבִּים, לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה, וּנְהָרוֹת, לֹא יִשְׁטְפוּהָ; אִם-יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶת-כָּל-הוֹן בֵּיתוֹ, בָּאַהֲבָה–בּוֹז, יָבוּזוּ לוֹ.
“Simeni kachotam al libecha, simeni kachotam al z’ro’echa, Ki aza kamavet ahava, Ki aza kamavet ahava, kasha kish’ol kin’ah, Rishafeha rishpei esh, esh shalhevet Yah.
“Mayim rabim yo yuchlu l’chabot et ha’ahava, u’n’harot lo yish’t’fuha, Im yiten ish et kawl hon beito b’ahava, boz yavuzu lo. (Shir HaShirim 8:6,7)
“Set me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave; the flashes thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the LORD. [esh shelhevet YAH].
Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it; if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, he would utterly be contemned”.
gravenimage says
Fine post, Dumbledore’s Army.