Reference: Fataawa al A-imah: P.57 - A Portion of a statement given by the Shaykh on Saudi T.V. after witnessing the W.T.C. collisions
After clarifying Islaam's Stance towards terrorism, the Shaykh continues...
...Due to this, what I witnessed being broadcast in the media, the collisions that caused those towers to collapse. The people’s reaction was as if it were the Day of Resurrection, their fright was the fright of the establishment of the Hour (Day of Resurrection). People running here and there were in plain shock.
Those who carry out such crimes are Islaamicaly considered to be the most dangerous of criminals, the worst of them in acts. Whoever believes that a Muslim scholar, one who is knowledgeable of the objectives of the Islaamic legislation, knowledgeable of the meanings of the Qur-aan and the Sunnah of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), would permit such acts, has indeed thought evil.
It is not befitting for a Muslim to rejoice over the misfortunes of others, even if it were an enemy who wronged them. Oppression is unacceptable [in Islaam] and personal transgression/revenge against those who do not deserve punishment is forbidden, a terrible affair.
So how about these events that we witnessed, events that cause fear by merely viewing them, how can it be said that Muslims approve of such activities?!
Shaykh Saalih ibn Muhammad al-Luhaydaan
Al Ijabaat Al Muhimah Fee Al Mashaakil Al Mudlahamah
The truth is that they harm Islaam and further turn people away from it.
The Muslims reached the point where they almost want to cover their faces in order to avoid being attributed to this terrifying group. Islaam is free from it. Even after Jihaad was ordained, the companions of the Prophet never used to go to non-Muslim societies and kill them, never! There is no Jihaad except under the banner of a ruler who has the ability to carry it out.
As for terrorism, by Allaah it is a deficiency on the part of the Muslims, I swear by Allaah, we never see its benefits, rather it is the opposite, it distorts the reputation of Islaam. But if were to act with wisdom, fear Allaah within our own selves firstly and then try to rectify other people's affairs with legislated methods, the results would be positive.
Al 'Alaamah Muhammad ibn Saaleh al 'Uthaymeen
العلامة محمد بن صالح العثيمين –رحمه الله-
Fataawa al A-imah: p.55
فتاوى الائمة: ص:55
Terrorism only causes Muslims living in their own countries to be killed as you are now witnessing. This is not from the affairs of Da'wah, nor is it from the affairs of Jihaad. Likewise bombings and causing destruction, this only draws great evil upon the Muslims as is now happening...
Al 'Alaamah Saaleh ibn Fawzaan Al Fawzaan
العلامة صالح بن فوزان الفوزان
Fataawa al A-imah: p.65
فتاوى الائمة: ص:65
Question: Is it permissible to hijack planes, blow up buildings and carry out revolts [against the government]? Is this considered to be from the essence of Islaam that one loves to act upon? Benefit us, may Allaah reward you.
Answer: These affairs are from the destruction that Islaam prohibits, and it draws a lot of evil upon the Muslims because the non-Muslims take this as grounds to attack the Muslims and annihilate them. It is these actions that non-Muslims have used as justification to dispraise Islaam as being a religion of terrorism, they say this because of such activities.
Islaam prohibits Bombings, destruction and hijacking planes because it causes harm to the Muslims before it does to other than them, and because it is a form of harm that does not contain any benefit.
Those who travel to and enter non-Muslim lands under a pact of safety (Visas), how could they then prove treacherous and betray it!?
How can a Muslim not realize this?
Do you not see that if a man enters a non-Muslim country and is given a pact of safety (a visa), that this is a betrayal? Every betrayer of a trust will have a banner raised over him on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said: ‘This is the treachery of so and so’ – by name. This would be publicized on the Day of Resurrection, because he is treacherous.
The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلّم) said:
((Do not betray even those who betray you.))
Even the person who betrays you, you mustn’t betray him! But these people, how is it that they enter with a pact of safety (a visa) and then prove treacherous? This is not the way of the believers, nor is treachery a characteristic of the Prophet, May the Salaat and Salaam be upon him, or his companions, and we seek refuge with Allah from that.
So when you speak, do not only consider your own self saying: ‘We want to establish Jihaad and we want to be martyrs...’ This does not give you the right to be a cause for the destruction of others, the fact that you want to be a martyr.
This is selfishness, a person like this only thinks of himself. All he wants, is to be killed in the cause of Allaah and to enter Jannah [according to his belief], that’s all, without looking at the interests and well being of others. This is not permissible, this is not the behavior of Muslims.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The 'Wahabi' Empire?
This week has seen another media furore over King Abdullah's visit to the UK which led to a barrage of criticism and pompous articles that were filled with venom against Saudi Arabia and anything even remotely connected to it. Issues related to torture, capital punishment, financing terrorism and allegations of oppressing women were all brought to the fore, matters which also take place within the good ole US of A! But when Bush Jnr visits the UK nothing is mentioned in the liberal press about human rights abuses and the like, only the barbaric Arabs are seen as those who need to be kept in check in this regard. It was also rather pathetic to see all manner of resentful elements within the UK form an unholy alliance which saw the likes of Muhammad Mehbooob Husain, extremist protesters outside the Saudi embassy, neo-con think tanks such as Policy Exchange and liberal journalists all rise to the occasion to condemn Saudi Arabia and by extension include the Salafi (Wahhabi) methodology in all of this, as we shall observe. What was also arrogant was that some quarters had the audacity to make statements such as how dare he [King Abdullah] lecture us on terrorism, as if he had totally condemned the UK. When a figure head of outward conservatism, and success in the world, without embracing the evils of Western secular liberal principles turns up and hits them with the reality that he is doing a better job of protecting civilization than they are, they flip out and see that as being automatically incorrect.
The first area to look at is this idea of Wahhabism, which although dealt with before still manages to reel off the lips of the uninformed. It would thus be of use to look at how the term became popularized during the colonial era by the British. W.W. Hunter in his book "The Indian Musalmans" noted that during the Indian Mutiny of 1857 CE the British feared uprising from the "Wahhabi" Muslims who were revolting against the British. Hunter stated in his book that:
"There is no fear to the British in India except from the Wahhabis, for they are causing disturbances against them, and agitating the people under the name of jihad to throw away the yoke of disobedience to the British and their authority."
During this time in Bengal, many Muslims, including the old, young and women, were all categorised "Wahhabis" and "revolters" against the British empire and were hanged from 1863-1865. Those who were imprisoned in the Andaman Islands and tortured were scholars of the Salafi-Ahl ul-Hadeeth community including Shaykh Ja'far Thanesary, ShaykhYahyaa Alee (1828-1868 CE), Shaykh Ahmad Abdullaah (1808-1881 CE), Shaykh Nadheer Husayn ad-Dehlawee.
Jalal Abualrub has compiled some superb research in this area based on studies conducted by other academics that are found within the Arabic language.
Abualrub's book on Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhaab noted that the British began using the term "WAHHABI" in India. He notes the research of Dr. Nasir Tuwaim said:
"Earlier Orientalists used the terms, Wahhabiyyah, Wahhabi, Wahhabis in their articles and books to refer to the movement and followers of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Some of them went to the extent of inserting this term into the titles of their books such as Burckhardt, Brydges and Cooper or in their articles such as Wilfrid Blunt Margoliouth Samuel Zwemer, Thomas Patrick Hughes Samalley and George Rentz. They did this even though some of them admitted that the enemies of the Da'wah used this term to describe it and that followers of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab do not refer to themselves by this term."
As a result, it is unfortunate that even the journalist Robert Fisk, who is asserted as an expert on Middle-East affairs, mentioned in an article entitled King Abdullah flies in to lecture us on terrorism (The Independent, Tuesday 30th October 2007) that the states religion of Saudi Arabia is "Wahhabism".
When in fact, it doesn't take even a student of the Middle-East to tell you that in actual fact the state religion of Saudi Arabia is Islam!
As for the New Labour and neo-con "ex-radical" Husain, his absolute acceptance of all things Eurocentric, Orientalist and Blairite is becoming an utter travesty. He had the gall to claim, in his usual manner of placating to Western audiences, that not every Wahhabi is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Wahhabi. One convoluted article by Paul Vallely even managed to connect the Jamaican preacher Abdullah el-Faisal to Saudi Arabia!? It is well-known that he made takfeer(calling Kafir to Muslims) of Saudi Arabia and slandered its scholars.
The second arena to look at is the nature of the Salafi methodology and the assertions that it, in some way fosters extremism and radicalisation. In the articles by Paul Vallely (Wahhabism: A deadly scripture� in The Independent, 1 November 2007) and Kevin Toolis (The Savage House of Saud, in The Daily Mirror, 30 October 2007) it was asserted that the 7/7 bombers were Salafi. First of all, the 7/7 bombers were known to members of the community and I personally know someone who knew Germaine Lindsay very well and it is thus evident that Lindsay was not Salafi but rather a Jihadi. This is just the same as the total lie mentioned in the press after 7/7 that Germaine Lindsay frequented Brixton Mosque just because he was of African-Caribbean origin even though he was from outside of London and not known to anyone from the Brixton Mosque. The two are not the same as they neither have the same emphasis nor the same beliefs in many issues such as:
the justification of suicide bombing, issues related to rebelling against the Muslim ruler, concepts regarding leadership in Islam and a whole host of areas that Salafi scholars have very clear views on. These misunderstandings borne out of a lack of communication with Salafi communities of the UK (such as the ones in Luton, Brixton, Cranford, East London, Birmingham etc.) have led to some very serious allegations being levelled at the followers of the Salafi way wherein Salafi Islam is linked to terrorist beliefs. Earlier this year a research paper was written by two analysts for the NYPD wherein Salafi Islam was equated with being the ideology of al-Qaeda. A detailed research paper was produced in light of this entitled Is the Salafi Methodology an Indicator of Terrorism, Political Violence and Radicalisation, which can be found at www.salafimanhaj.com One quote in Paul Vallely's article even stated that an Imam of the Salafi influence had caused such a climate of suspicion that when teaching classical texts he had to leave out everything that could not be traced explicitly back to the Qur'an and the accepted sayings of the Prophet the hadith. So then what on earth is this Imam teaching then if he's not teaching what is explicitly in the Qur'an and hadeeth? This in itself is no different to what the extremists do! Teach that which cannot be traced back in the name of teaching a classical traditional text while those who ascribe to the Salafi methodology teach that which can be traced back.
They usually seem to link the strictness of the Salafis with acts of terrorism, as if they were inseparable. These are nothing but secular liberal half-truths, used to promote the more 'westernized' groups who generally have no problem remaining ignorant of Islam. They are quick to point out that the Jihadis are Salafi but you never find them admitting that without Saudi Arabia being as opposed to the Jihadi methodology (manhaj) as it is the extremist Jihadis would probably be running riot. To date Saudi Arabia has consistently implemented strategies to oppose extremism like no other state.
Hence, it seems as though terrorism is being used to attack the 'strictness' loathed by these people, which are basic beliefs and practices of Islam that most Muslims believe in anyway since it is rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah (Prophetic tradition). So their intent with this approach is to paint the false picture that it is Salafis who have a monopoly on exclusivism and intolerance, when quite clearly this is untrue.
Then there is the oft-repeated claim that Saudi Arabia is supporting a type of Islam that is deliberately attempting to subvert Islam in Britain - a claim boldly asserted by some elements. No one is denying that there are have been some errors in judgment regarding certain issues; however the reality which many of us witnessed in the mid-1990s before the 'war on terror' context was, as I have stated on more than one occasion, that the main extremists in the UK all had total enmity towards Saudi Arabia. Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada, Abdullah Faisal, Omar Bakri, Muhammad al-Mas'ari et al. are characterised by this feature. Indeed, they were supported by the UK which gave them safe-haven and refuge. So it is folly to now try and lay the blame at the feet of Saudi Arabia for the problems of radicalisation the contemporary world is facing.
Everyone who's jumped on this Saudi/ Wahhabi/ Salafi attack bandwagon has their own, often not immediately apparent, agenda that they are trying to push. The press because they want to sell papers and push modern Western secular liberal principles, and those underhanded Muslims who have attempted to undermine the Salafi way from the very beginning.
Source: www.salafimanhaj.com
The first area to look at is this idea of Wahhabism, which although dealt with before still manages to reel off the lips of the uninformed. It would thus be of use to look at how the term became popularized during the colonial era by the British. W.W. Hunter in his book "The Indian Musalmans" noted that during the Indian Mutiny of 1857 CE the British feared uprising from the "Wahhabi" Muslims who were revolting against the British. Hunter stated in his book that:
"There is no fear to the British in India except from the Wahhabis, for they are causing disturbances against them, and agitating the people under the name of jihad to throw away the yoke of disobedience to the British and their authority."
During this time in Bengal, many Muslims, including the old, young and women, were all categorised "Wahhabis" and "revolters" against the British empire and were hanged from 1863-1865. Those who were imprisoned in the Andaman Islands and tortured were scholars of the Salafi-Ahl ul-Hadeeth community including Shaykh Ja'far Thanesary, ShaykhYahyaa Alee (1828-1868 CE), Shaykh Ahmad Abdullaah (1808-1881 CE), Shaykh Nadheer Husayn ad-Dehlawee.
Jalal Abualrub has compiled some superb research in this area based on studies conducted by other academics that are found within the Arabic language.
Abualrub's book on Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhaab noted that the British began using the term "WAHHABI" in India. He notes the research of Dr. Nasir Tuwaim said:
"Earlier Orientalists used the terms, Wahhabiyyah, Wahhabi, Wahhabis in their articles and books to refer to the movement and followers of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Some of them went to the extent of inserting this term into the titles of their books such as Burckhardt, Brydges and Cooper or in their articles such as Wilfrid Blunt Margoliouth Samuel Zwemer, Thomas Patrick Hughes Samalley and George Rentz. They did this even though some of them admitted that the enemies of the Da'wah used this term to describe it and that followers of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab do not refer to themselves by this term."
As a result, it is unfortunate that even the journalist Robert Fisk, who is asserted as an expert on Middle-East affairs, mentioned in an article entitled King Abdullah flies in to lecture us on terrorism (The Independent, Tuesday 30th October 2007) that the states religion of Saudi Arabia is "Wahhabism".
When in fact, it doesn't take even a student of the Middle-East to tell you that in actual fact the state religion of Saudi Arabia is Islam!
As for the New Labour and neo-con "ex-radical" Husain, his absolute acceptance of all things Eurocentric, Orientalist and Blairite is becoming an utter travesty. He had the gall to claim, in his usual manner of placating to Western audiences, that not every Wahhabi is a terrorist but every terrorist is a Wahhabi. One convoluted article by Paul Vallely even managed to connect the Jamaican preacher Abdullah el-Faisal to Saudi Arabia!? It is well-known that he made takfeer(calling Kafir to Muslims) of Saudi Arabia and slandered its scholars.
The second arena to look at is the nature of the Salafi methodology and the assertions that it, in some way fosters extremism and radicalisation. In the articles by Paul Vallely (Wahhabism: A deadly scripture� in The Independent, 1 November 2007) and Kevin Toolis (The Savage House of Saud, in The Daily Mirror, 30 October 2007) it was asserted that the 7/7 bombers were Salafi. First of all, the 7/7 bombers were known to members of the community and I personally know someone who knew Germaine Lindsay very well and it is thus evident that Lindsay was not Salafi but rather a Jihadi. This is just the same as the total lie mentioned in the press after 7/7 that Germaine Lindsay frequented Brixton Mosque just because he was of African-Caribbean origin even though he was from outside of London and not known to anyone from the Brixton Mosque. The two are not the same as they neither have the same emphasis nor the same beliefs in many issues such as:
the justification of suicide bombing, issues related to rebelling against the Muslim ruler, concepts regarding leadership in Islam and a whole host of areas that Salafi scholars have very clear views on. These misunderstandings borne out of a lack of communication with Salafi communities of the UK (such as the ones in Luton, Brixton, Cranford, East London, Birmingham etc.) have led to some very serious allegations being levelled at the followers of the Salafi way wherein Salafi Islam is linked to terrorist beliefs. Earlier this year a research paper was written by two analysts for the NYPD wherein Salafi Islam was equated with being the ideology of al-Qaeda. A detailed research paper was produced in light of this entitled Is the Salafi Methodology an Indicator of Terrorism, Political Violence and Radicalisation, which can be found at www.salafimanhaj.com One quote in Paul Vallely's article even stated that an Imam of the Salafi influence had caused such a climate of suspicion that when teaching classical texts he had to leave out everything that could not be traced explicitly back to the Qur'an and the accepted sayings of the Prophet the hadith. So then what on earth is this Imam teaching then if he's not teaching what is explicitly in the Qur'an and hadeeth? This in itself is no different to what the extremists do! Teach that which cannot be traced back in the name of teaching a classical traditional text while those who ascribe to the Salafi methodology teach that which can be traced back.
They usually seem to link the strictness of the Salafis with acts of terrorism, as if they were inseparable. These are nothing but secular liberal half-truths, used to promote the more 'westernized' groups who generally have no problem remaining ignorant of Islam. They are quick to point out that the Jihadis are Salafi but you never find them admitting that without Saudi Arabia being as opposed to the Jihadi methodology (manhaj) as it is the extremist Jihadis would probably be running riot. To date Saudi Arabia has consistently implemented strategies to oppose extremism like no other state.
Hence, it seems as though terrorism is being used to attack the 'strictness' loathed by these people, which are basic beliefs and practices of Islam that most Muslims believe in anyway since it is rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah (Prophetic tradition). So their intent with this approach is to paint the false picture that it is Salafis who have a monopoly on exclusivism and intolerance, when quite clearly this is untrue.
Then there is the oft-repeated claim that Saudi Arabia is supporting a type of Islam that is deliberately attempting to subvert Islam in Britain - a claim boldly asserted by some elements. No one is denying that there are have been some errors in judgment regarding certain issues; however the reality which many of us witnessed in the mid-1990s before the 'war on terror' context was, as I have stated on more than one occasion, that the main extremists in the UK all had total enmity towards Saudi Arabia. Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada, Abdullah Faisal, Omar Bakri, Muhammad al-Mas'ari et al. are characterised by this feature. Indeed, they were supported by the UK which gave them safe-haven and refuge. So it is folly to now try and lay the blame at the feet of Saudi Arabia for the problems of radicalisation the contemporary world is facing.
Everyone who's jumped on this Saudi/ Wahhabi/ Salafi attack bandwagon has their own, often not immediately apparent, agenda that they are trying to push. The press because they want to sell papers and push modern Western secular liberal principles, and those underhanded Muslims who have attempted to undermine the Salafi way from the very beginning.
Source: www.salafimanhaj.com
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
ISLAMIC TERRORISTS' THREAT IN EUROPE: Facts & Figures exposes the LIARS!
The European Police Office (Europol) releases its first report on terrorism in the EU. This report clearly proves contrary to what the corporate Medias bombarding related to threat of ‘Islamic Terrorism’ and threat of ‘Islamists’ in Europe. This report was almost neglected by the European journalists especially not a single Swedish newspaper or news-channel bothers to cover this report.
This is another clear indication how biased the corporate Medias in the West when it comes to covering Islam and Muslims. This report is another proof that Western medias just feeding Lies regarding Islam and Muslims.
What does the Europol report say; the report is namely a grave disappointment for the anti-Islamic campaigners.
According to the report released by Europol, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2007 from Netherlands, in page 15 it provides a table referring to Terrorist incidents happened 11 EU member states mentioned, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and UK.
Total 706 persons where arrested across the European Union for terrorism-related offences last year (2006), And half of those arrests involved threats from ‘Islamic Extremists’, which were highlighted in front pages in all dailies and it were all over the news-channel as if their crime has been proven in the court of Law! But once the Muslim suspects were acquitted no Media is bothered to cover it, isn’t this Media Extremism? This is total character Assassination of that person, a clear violation of Human Rights.
In total 498 Terrorist incidents, 283 incidents happened in France perpetrated by the ‘Separatists’, none by ‘Islamists’, 136 incidents happened in Spain by ‘Separatists’, none by ‘Islamists’ out of all only one incident in Germany are perpetrated by the so called ‘Islamists’ and yet in executive summary of the report starts with ‘Islamic Terrorism’, devoting several pages to ‘Islamic Terrorism’, despite the low number.
Islamic fundamentalists been behind a higher number of attacks-it would have been front page news at every big daily. One attack is simply too few--it won't do if the image of an "Islamic threat" is to live on.
Considering the perpetual warnings in our dailies and in news channels, the findings in the Europol report has really unmasked the reality of the western Media.
The interesting part is, as the truth about the fake Islamic threat is being unraveled daily, millions of Muslims being slaughtered because of “War on (t)Error” the west is asking the question, “Why do they hate us?, when we are Good!”. If this is what Good means then we Muslims don’t know what ‘Bad’ is.
How can the West expect the Muslims to believe in their news coverage to be neutral and just?
The report is available online: [http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/TESAT/TESAT2007.pdf].
Source: www.inarrators.com
Feminism
Feminism: if a loving husband provides for a devoted wife, she is a "parasite." But if she is a corporate slave or mistress, then she is "independent" and "liberated."
This is typical of the vicious media campaign global mind controllers have waged against society since 1950.
This campaign to destroy families, arrest heterosexual development, create social dysfunction and reduce population was devastatingly successful.
"The scale of marital breakdown in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent," says historian Lawrence Stone. (Bennett, The Broken Hearth, 10)
In 40 short years, the marriage rate is down by one third, the divorce rate has doubled, the birth rate is one half, and single parent families per capita have tripled. Most people are too preoccupied coping to recognize or resist globalist manipulation.
In 1952, the Rockefellers annually controlled $250 million dollars of media advertising. Their newspapers and networks hyped Helen Gurley Brown's 1962 book "Sex and the Single Girl" and the movie by the same name. Millions of single women were told to seek personal fulfillment in career instead of family. At the same time, the Rockefellers were funding and lobbying for population control and eugenics.
As editor of Cosmopolitan (1965-97), Brown was a role model and "teacher" for career women in America and around the world (36 foreign editions.) She married at age 37 and remained childless.
"She is arguably one of the most influential women of the decade, perhaps even the century", one women's website gushes. "She instructed, helped, advised, cheered for, encouraged, liberated, and promoted women, giving them new role models to emulate and a new manual for the sexual revolution. Armed with the pill, she showed women how they ...could take advantage of ... their sexual destinies."
Along with Communist activist Betty Frieden, and CIA agent Gloria Steinem, Brown belongs to the triumvirate of modern feminist "pioneers."
WHAT HOUSEWIVES ARE NOT...
Brown didn't accuse the wife of being a whore.
Brown respects whores.
In her latest book, "I'm Wild Again" (2000) she tells us right away that in 1941, at age 19 she joined an "escort service" and made out with a 50-year-old man for $5.
"Why wasn't I revolted? I was a little but not utterly. I think even then I was a practising realist.... I tried to do whatever you needed to do to survive." (4)
She wasn't prepared to become a prostitute, not exactly.
She got a secretarial job on the understanding that she would sleep with her married boss and he would "take care" for her in return. This arrangement lasted for a few years. She describes the routine:
"After cocktail hour we did go to my flat to make love. The lovemaking? ...This was two people copulating -- he seemed to have a good time...Moi learned to fake often and well." (15)
Brown's excuse is that she was a helping a mother and invalid sister back in Arkansas. (Prostitutes generally don't come from wealth.)
She laments she never really got the promised financial payoff for being a mistress: "I needed somebody to tell me how to treat a man in this situation, how to flatter and cuddle and coo. I should have done it better." (19)
Helen Gurley Brown became that "somebody to tell me how to treat a man in this situation."
She taught women how to be mistresses, corporate and otherwise, instead of wives and mothers. She helped to transform the female mentality from one of devotion and love to one of a calculating predator.
Here is how she got her husband to marry her.
"You get the hook in. Darling, charming, delicious, sexy you has to have sunk into him so seriously, the hook [is] buried so deep he can't get it out without severe pain, i.e. can't live without you. You then close in and deliver your ultimatum. I had to deliver mine twice."(27)
While Brown claims she was loyal, she thinks adultery is just fine. The man's wife is to blame if he strays. Sex, Brown says, "is a physical feeling" "it feels good... one of the best things we have...." not to be subjected to "a moral imperative."
Suffocating a sexual urge can lead to "twitches, tension or depression" and driving "off a cliff some night." (52) But, like a practised madam, she cautions "never sleep with someone who has less money or more troubles than you." (225)
Office romances and even sleeping with the boss is just fine as long as you're discreet. (107) She tells her readers to make the boss "look good," let him take credit for their work, and don't complain about putting in extra hours.
Feminism, it seems, has stolen wives and mothers from families, and put them to work for corporations. Instead of following husbands who love them "until death do thee part," women now obey bosses who pay for their services and fire them in a downturn.
In Brown's view, if a loving husband provides for a devoted wife, she is a "parasite." But if she is a corporate slave or mistress, then she is "independent" and "liberated."
FAMILY vs. FEMINISM: THE BATTLELINE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
The global controllers need to destroy the family to control the individual. When people do not belong to a family, they need to belong to something else, which the corporate state will supply.
It has taken me until my 50's to understand how heterosexuality works because this knowledge is suppressed.
Heterosexual marriage is the union of the PERSONAL (Woman) with the IMPERSONAL (Man).
This basic difference is seen in the male and female reaction to sex. A man will have sex with any number of attractive women. A woman instinctively requires love. Her focus is personal, on a specific man.
Feminists seek to destroy the realm of the personal represented by women. "The personal is the political," they say parroting their Rockefeller-Communist forbearers. They force women to behave as though they were men.
Feminism is a lesbian hatred and envy of women. Lesbians hate their own femininity because their father didn't love them. They project their self-hatred on all things feminine. They despise a woman's dependence on a man and her desire to bear his children. They can't be women so they try to be men.
In marriage, a woman is a man's point of contact with the personal, the world of emotion and love. A man is a woman's contact with the impersonal world of money and power. Together they complete each other and form a psychic whole. This is a healthy environment for children.
In intimate relations, women must sacrifice power for love. Women love by self-sacrifice. This is based on a mother's love for a child. Because of their sacrifice, women are loved and cherished by their families. From the beginning, they must train husbands and children not to take them for granted.
Men do not love in quite the same way. They increase their power and devote the rewards to their wives and children. This is also a form of self-sacrifice and it is what motivates men. Quite simply, women empower their husbands who then love and protect them. As you see, feminism robs both men and women of their raison d'etre.
The heterosexual contract is not arbitrary, oppressive or rigid. My wife has a professional career. I do all the shopping and cooking. Once the sexual dynamic is clear, couples can make their own rules. And of course, this power arrangement does not apply to the work world.
Women achieve godliness through self-sacrifice. It is a vicious slander (typical of Rockefeller leftists and feminists) to portray devoted hardworking wives and mothers as "bums" and "parasites." The assumption that only work performed for cash (state/economy) is of value is pure new world order. They want to eradicate the personal and spiritual, the private life of the family and the work that this entails.
Brown says, "Whenever you live through someone else, they want someone else." This is simply not true. We love mom because she put us ahead of becoming the top producer at Century 21. Love is self-sacrifice.
Beyond a certain point, ambition in a woman is masculine and impersonal. America is full of bitter neutered women and befuddled emasculated men.
Feminism pretends to be about equal opportunity for women because no one will quarrel with that. In fact, feminism is a sophisticated elite program to destabilize and depopulate the world by undermining heterosexuality.
Iraq is as much about global social disintegration as it is about oil. The new world order is a struggle for man's soul. It is an attempt to steal our spiritual birthright, our connection to God.
Source: Henry Makow
Qatif Woman's Case and the Saudi Judgment
The recent attention to the Qatif court case in which a gang raped victim was penalised with lashes and imprisonment has re-surfaced criticism of the Saudi Judicial system in the media. However the view circulated is to an extent biased and one-sided. Often one gets misled by looking at just one side of the coin. International newspapers carried the story with various headlines but a common theme – A gang rape victim sentenced for lashes and imprisonment. A common reader might be disgusted by the very thought, “How could a victim of a gang rape be penalised? Could there be anything more inhuman than punishing an oppressed victim herself? And all her guilt lies in being with a man she is not related to.” These thoughts would be sufficient for most of us to come to a very satisfied conclusion and justify the international media remarks such as ‘Barbaric Laws’ and ‘Inhuman interpretation of laws’.
Having lived in Saudi Arabia and knowing it personally, I attempt to present the other side of the coin. To give a background first, Saudi Arabia’s judicial system is largely based on the Islamic Law. The Religious Scholars do accept that it’s not purely based on Islamic Law and has its shortcomings, but yet largely and fundamentally it follows the Islamic Law. One of the basics of Islamic Law is that not only are all types of crimes prohibited, but all things which lead to such crimes are also prohibited. And on the other hand, good things which prevent these crimes are much encouraged. For example, Islam prohibits adultery and fornication i.e. sex outside marriage, premarital sex etc. It views them as one of the biggest social crimes. So it prohibits all things that lead to them such as gazing or staring at the opposite sex, immodesty, dating etc. On the other hand it promotes and encourages marriage. It doesn’t deny the basic instinct of a human being but it regulates it into a manner that would preserve the well-being of a family; promote modesty and protect the society from sexual crimes.
Having said that let us look at the Qatif Girl’s case. She is a young married woman who had an illegal relationship with a man. And this man threatened her that he would publicise her pictures taken with him during the relationship. She was with this man when they were abducted and raped. The pictures were handed over to the police later on. So the Saudi judges first gave 10 months to 5 years imprisonment to the rapists and 90 lashes to the woman as punishment for her involvement in an illicit relationship. The atmosphere of Saudi Arabia is very different than most countries. It is a very conservative and religious country. Rapes are especially unheard of, however, as we see the society become more western, such crimes are now increasing than before. Saudi religious leaders take every step to preserve modesty and stop youth from getting into immoral relationships. We know that most of the sexual crimes are done by ‘known people’. ‘Date Abuse’ and ‘Date Rape’ where women are subjected to the most sexual abuse is a major problem in the western world. After clear evidence that pointed towards the illegal relationship of the Qatif Woman surfaced which could have also been the cause leading to the horrific gang rape, it became incumbent upon the Saudi authorities that they also punish her for violating the country’s well known law. When the appeal for this matter was publicised to create sympathy and draw criticism over the law, the punishment was raised to 200 lashes and 6 months of imprisonment for the girl. [The Appeals court also increased the punishment of the rapists to 2 – 7 years imprisonment]. This raise of punishment, according to official sources, was due to “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media” which is a pretty valid point.
The punishment by lashes is also misunderstood as ‘barbaric’. While lashing the hand should not be raised such that the underarm is seen, which means that one cannot apply do it with force. We see so much from the western hypocrisy that they allow ‘the accused’ who are not yet convicted to undergo severe torture. Pain, extreme temperature conditions, psychological trauma and more unspeakable tortures in prisons like ‘Guantanamo Bay’, Abu Ghraib etc are pretty common. And all this is before even being convicted. This is their hypocricy, they have a law but their practice is different. Islamic Law is direct and straight forward. It has clear described laws and punishments for those who violate it without infringing their rights.
Again everyone may not agree with this side of view, but there are many others who agree to it. We keep talking about tolerating others views and accepting diversity, but in practice we are really forcing our view of liberalisation and freedom. So if some differ they are labelled as intolerant and oppressors.
Source: www.inarrators.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)