Thursday, June 03, 2010

72 Hijabs in a Cracker Jack Box

Islam is a religion by men and for men. Women belong to the head of the household, to do with as he wishes. The woman child belongs to the head of the household until he tells her she belongs to someone else -- another male head of another household. If a woman child allows her wrappings of virginity to be soiled by anyone but the master, her life is forfeit.
...male domination and female subjugation are Quranically prescribed, and who is Man to challenge the immutable Word of God—especially when God’s arrangements ensure perpetual male domination? This punitive patriarchy is not confined to Muslims in their own lands; it the West, in the lands to which Muslims immigrate, but whose “degenerate” and “sinful” societies they abhor.....the subjection of women within Islam is the biggest obstacle to the integration and progress of Muslim communities in the West. It is a subjection committed by the closest kin in the most intimate place, the home, and it is sanctioned by the greatest figure in the imagination of Muslims: Allah himself. _DB
Men of Islam do not wish to integrate with the west. They do not wish for the westerner's version of "progress." Men of Islam are born into a world of unlimited male dominance. Why would they give that up for western concepts of "equality" and "opportunity for all?"

There have been numerous honor killings in the United States, in which Muslim fathers or husbands kill daughters or wives who have “sullied” the family name in some way; and yet, ....not once has the achingly non-judgmental American press used the phrase “honor killing” in its reports on the murders _DB
Women are among the most prized possessions of the Muslim male. But they only hold their value as long as they maintain their innocence, in the eyes of the master. The moment the master perceives -- for whatever reason -- that innocence is lost, the life is forfeit.

Not every Muslim male is born into a privileged life of wealth, many wives, concubines, and female slaves. Some of them must roam western cities in gangs, to rape infidel women and Muslim women who appear to stray from the path. Others must fantasize of the 72 virgins who await him if he fulfills the conditions set forth for martyrdom -- the ultimate prize and reward, poured out of an exploding Cracker Jack box.
The women must be virgins as they change hands, from master to master. Without innocence of the chattel, the owner master's honour is lost, and can only be regained through the spilling of blood. It is a fetish of innocence, but instead of valuing one's own innocence it is the innocence of one's human possessions that is valued.

There is no escape from this fetish for the Muslim woman. No escape except the one she provides for herself. And if the woman does summon up the courage to escape, how is she regarded? A Somali taxi driver in Washington DC:
“What do you think of Ayaan Hirsi Ali… you know, the Somali lady?” He swiveled his head to fix me with his gaze, and then turned it back to the road. “Very bad person,” he said, after a strained pause. “We think she is a bitch. We hate her.” _DB
Yes, they hate her. They want to kill her, if they could only get past the bodyguards. Most escaped un-hijabbed women do not have bodyguards or protectors, even in the west. Western feminists and the western media and academia generally see these would-be liberated women as an embarassment to the post-modernist multicultural program.

Because if we ever did confront the deep and essential pathology of the Islamic community, what would become of "progressive multiculturalism?" If Muslim women are forced to wear hijabs as a "fetish of innocence hung tightly round the neck", then western post modern multiculturalists must all wear a fetish of feigned ignorance.

As the innocents are slaughtered by the Cracker Jack fireworks, and are sacrificed on the eternal altar of the master's honour, the monkeys of the west must always remember to cover their eyes, ears, and mouths, lest they sin against their own radical religion of "progressive dieoff progressivism."

Previously published at Al Fin

No comments: