Topics

This is the first of a series of posts I'm going to be making examining the theory among modern Muslims that America and Western Europe are principally more Islamic than Muslim countries in the Middle East or North Africa.

I made a post on Quraniyoon subreddit last December dismissing this theory as a myth, but I received mainly mixed to negative responses from Qur'anists. I said on that post that racial tension was one of the ills of the west, and a few persons countered that the west is less racist than the Muslim world.

This is a very erroneous view. There are alternate definitions of racism. Every year, the so called anti-racists have to broaden the definition or scope in other that their agenda stay relevant. Although nearly everyone agrees that racism is an evil thing, there is no universal agreement as to what constitute racism.

Racism is a social construct that varies with time and place. What constitute racism in US, may be easily brushed aside as normal or fair in the part of the world I currently live. Hence, how do we consistently define racism?

The only consistent and encompassing definition of racism I can find is a "fixation or obsession with race." Period. And based upon this definition, the west is no less racist than the Muslim world. In fact, as I will explore in the rest of this post, the 'liberal' West is even more racist than China, Russia or the conservative Muslim countries in the middle east.

For the sake of this post I'll limit my coverage of the west to UK & US. I'm not even going to bother with racism by the fringe elements, the so called far right or white supremacists. Thanks to the MSM, everyone is quite familiar with that. I'm going to focus on racism that is enforced and enjoined even in the political correct mainstream. So, here goes.

[Feminism]

Back in the old days, it was hard to appeal to people with anything other than God. It began with polytheism, multiple gods as can be seen in ancient Greek or Norse mythology.

With time, the concept of multiple gods grew old fashion. Being a monotheist became the cool thing, yet after a while monotheism wasn't enough, the scriptures had to come into the equation.

And so up till the end of the nineteenth century Monotheism with divine scripture had been the gold standard for human philosophy, especially Abrahamic monotheism. But one by one, Abrahamic religions began to fall.

First Judaism, Christianity followed, and at best, Islam seem on the same course. I've written at length on the problems with Islam, why even a reform can't save it, and why it'll meet the same faith as Christianity.

But I've also written in depth that societies don't abandon religion, they're constantly forging new ones, more modern, cooler, new fashion and atheistic. And unlike theistic religions, these new religions may not have a god, but they have Satan figures.

And here are four of these religions which I alternatively dub cults.

Feminism
There are multiple sects, ranging from level headed realists that advocate against forced marriages or honor killings to ridiculously irrational ones hell bent on tearing down the concept of gender or the Patriarchy that built everything they depend upon - Nation states, Sovereign borders, Economies etc.

Satan Figure - The Patriachy

Manosphere
They're the male response to feminism or perhaps, radical feminism. Except that unlike the feminists they're shunned and shamed by society, even though they're no monolithic group.

Within the manosphere, you have groups like the PUA that are downright nasty & hypocritical in their approach to women, still you have legitimate folks among the MGTOW that are simply fed up, whether it is with marriage & divorce rules often skewed in favor of women or domestic violence courts often biased against men.

Satan figure - Female nature or the Matriarchy

Cultural Marxism
Of course, a very few of cultural Marxists are respectable, can respect opposing views without  hurling slurs of "racist, racist!", "nazi!" or some sort of 'phobes' at their detractors.

But for the most part, the Cultural Marxists are the worst of the bunch, especially in the west. Whether they're bemoaning plain old racism or homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia or Anti-Semitism, they're nosy, whiny and downright nasty.

At their worst, they're emotional, overbearing, and will play dirty, harass, bully and frustrate whomever they disagree with.

And worse, they're very powerful. More powerful I dare say than Radical Islam. They have all of mainstream media, entire institutions and political parties committed to them. Not to mention that they've convinced everyone that they are the victims or underdogs at war with an all evil, all powerful, supremacist cabal that permeate society.

Satan Figure - Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan

Socialism/Marxism
Socialists for the most part are shill. They let the other cults like cultural Marxists & may be Feminists do the dirty work including raging, protesting or rioting to chip away at capitalist monster, while they gradually supplant it with socialism.

They don't identify as socialists, they don't even know what the term imply. To them, they're just aiming to even the playing field and ensure equality of outcome or opportunity for everyone. Sound noble of course, until you get to their principles - Radical egalitarianism, seize from the rich & give to the poor, take from the 'privileged' & give to the 'underprivileged'. Basically, rob Peter to pay Paul.

Satan figure - Mega-corporations, Societies' Middle Class

[A. Islam is a religion experiencing crisis today, all over the world.]

So about a week ago, a school teacher in France was beheaded by a "refugee" for displaying cartoons of Muhammad in his class. There's been a few related terror incident after that. And Macron and several western leaders have now rallied to condemn the act and reaffirm the primacy of freedom of speech.

All due sympathy to the deceased, but unlike I've done with similar tragedies in the past, I'm not here to blame "Islamism", "Radical Islam", "Traditional Islam" or "Hadith teachings". Instead, this is an avenue to point the hypocrisy & insanity in the west, especially on the political Left.

Macron delivers a speech in a public gathering following the killing of the teacher, Samuel Paty. In summary, he says;

A. Islam is a religion experiencing crisis today, all over the world.
B. There is need to 'free Islam in France from foreign influences'.
C. France failed immigrant communities, 'creating its own separation'.
D. We will not give up caricatures & drawings, even if others back away.

To start, I want to address the false doctrine of "freedom of speech" in the west, and the scam behind it. This is important because freedom of speech remains the greatest scam ever sold outside of religion.

But any close observation of the west reveal that certain speech are not tolerated, they're branded as hate speech, sometimes these speeches are banned and their utterance is punishable.

These include speech that demographics like Jews, Blacks, Asians and Muslims might find offensive, regardless of the veracity of such speech. There are plenty of examples, but the most relevant here would be 'denying the holocaust'. It is in order to avoid hate speech accusations that public figures often maintain political correctness when addressing sensitive subjects.

In Austria, 2018, an Austrian critic of Islam was convicted and fined for insulting Muhammad, despite pleading not guilty on grounds of factual accuracy & freedom of speech.

So, with regards to the Charlie Hebdo's cartoon on Muhammad, let's not mince words up. Going by the western logic of hate speech, this is simply "hate speech". Ironically, although it is insulting Muhammad & Muslims are offended by this cartoon, Macron & his government as well as politicians in other European countries want to play the "free speech" card this time.

Let's see the problems with Macron's speech and western leaders.

A. Islam is a religion experiencing crisis today, all over the world.

Not true. First, Islam is the fastest growing traditional religion, even by conversion. Secondly most Muslims are content with Islam as it is.

Islam is not in a crisis, which is why, I'm sorry to admit, Islamic reform failed. The notion that Islam is currently undergoing some crisis, like Christianity underwent before the Protestant Reformation is false.

B. There is need to 'free Islam in France from foreign influences'.

Apparently the French government don't get Islam. In traditional Islam, criticism of Muhammad is punishable by death, and contrary to Muslim apologists, there is no need for some court to try the culprit, any random Muslim can proceed execute the blasphemer. This constitute hadith teachings.

So don't blame foreign influences on Islam in France, blame the Islamic teachings. But we know that would be too politically incorrect, so even if Macron knows it, he dares not state it.


C. France failed immigrant communities, 'creating its own separation.'

So we all know that western leaders have been pushing for diversity and multiculturalism for a long time. They try to give the impression of "tolerance", "altruism" and try to seem "progressive." And a lot of people fell for it.

But as the years passed, it became clear that they were only looking after their selfish interests - a sustainable voter base, cheap labor source and reorganization of human societies to divide & conquer.

OK. So they import the immigrants but they end up with ethnically segregated communities, and now Macron is citing the need to integrate immigrants as a measure to curb Muslim extremism.

But this clearly shows how warped western thought have become. Birds of a feather flock together. That's pretty much explains segregation. As hard as it is to admit, not every immigrant in France want to share neighborhood or work space with native French. And vice versa.

Lots of Middle eastern Muslim migrants won't integrate because they're of a different background & interest from the french. They may pay lip service, but they don't buy into the west's diversity or multiculturalism obsession. And their choice to self-segregate should be acknowledged.

Heck, pushing integration will further breed conflicts due to differing and contradictory values, cultures and religious doctrines between the migrants and native French. So, Macron will fail.

If France sought integration, the very least the government could've done was to enforce stronger borders, controlled and restricted immigration. This would avoid clustering of large numbers of migrants to form segregated communities.

In short, uncontrolled & mass immigration contributes to segregation, which is has become Macron's scapegoat for France Muslim extremism. Unfortunately, in the west, particularly the English speaking west, to object to the mass or unrestricted immigration system would be xenophobic. So everyone turns a blind eye.

D. We will not give up caricatures & drawings, even if others back away.

Traditional Muslims will not tolerate caricature of their prophet, even if in France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgMvreTnw4A

Fom proper context, I recommend seeing Edip's video above before reading this thread.

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. (Qur'an 49:6)

And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - about all those [one] will be questioned. (Qur'an 17:36)

"Don't believe anything without evidence" - Edip Yuksel

Actually this thread should've been titled, "There is no such thing as Morality." Since, at the end of the day, there does not exist an objective frame of reference for deciding right and wrong. And even religion is not an objective frame of reference.

But that said, at least religion offers the only frame of reference for morality that is consistent and has been unanimously trusted for ages. Which brings me to the reason for this thread.

The opponents of religions often say that we don't need religion or revelations to decide right from wrong, and that all we need is Reason and Empathy. For instance, they may say that "We know intuitively that murder or theft is wrong, without reading the 10 commandments."

So, the atheists, deists and of course the God aloners in the Qur'anist movement assume that in absence of religion, a form of moral unity may be attained by a population of humans based upon reason and empathy. And this is deeply flawed.

Reason isn't consistent, let alone objective outside the laboratories of natural sciences. For instance, is it moral or immoral for a destitute, homeless, 3 weeks pregnant woman to abort her fetus? Human reason is severely limited by experience and intelligence.

Empathy is deeply subjective because it is hampered by mood, emotion and most importantly, your sensitivity. For instance, why is killing an innocent person immoral, but killing a sheep moral?

So, where then is morality derived? One that is consistent and least subjective. It derives from an authority, such as the word of God - the scriptures. This is where religion comes in.

In the end, religion don't offer an ideal or accurate moral system, but neither does atheism, deism, or "God alone". What is respectable about organized religion is the unanimity on moral issues it brings about, which becomes a stepping stone for an harmonious society.

I wrote at length previously on the danger of Anti-religion and God alone mantra as trend among Qur'anists. Both trends push for inclusivity and shun organized community based religion.

The Qur'an opposes either trends. It prescribes laws and doctrines for Muslims that cannot be established without a closely knit community of individuals who believe in and abide by the Qur'an.

Even more, the Qur'an 5:48 states -

For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and if God had willed, He would have made you all one community, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.

Notice the passage reads, "for each of you we have made laws and a structure", not "for all of you we have made the law and structure". There is also recognition of multiple communities of faith, not one community.

Thus, the Qur'an calls for organized religion and approve division among men on religious line. This brings me to the title of this thread.

All civilizations past and present originate from some form of 'religious' community - a population of people sharing quite similar sacred tradition of god(s) and holy laws or doctrines. From the Sumerian civilization to the current American civillization.

Never in human history have God aloners and anti-religionists built a civilization. This is simply because they shun community building, the foundational step to actualizing a civilization. Their core message is to include everyone that is peaceful and monotheist regardless of their ideological principles, laws and dogmas.

The result of that is not a harmonious community, it is a mishmash of factions engaged in a perennial competition to assert the dominance of their own view at the expense of others.

The outcome of this is secession or dominance of one ideological faction over the rest, before any peaceful coexisting community can thrive and develop into a successful civilization over few generations.

Human beings are naturally & socially different, and thus divided. We can't all agree & to get along in spite of core ideological differences. And pushing people to permanently integrate and abandon their unpopular preferences all in the name of inclusivity, tolerance and diversity is the root of much of the world's problems like - Islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism, homophobia etc.

What is best is respect alternative viewpoint and allow for spaces - communities - within which such viewpoints may be expressed.

Peace. 

Tahir Ahmad Naseem, a man accused of blasphemy for claiming that he was a prophet has been shot dead in a courtroom in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar, police officials say, the latest violence associated with Pakistan's strict blasphemy laws.

"The shooter accepts responsibility for killing him, and says that he killed him for having committed blasphemy," said police official Ahmed. "[The suspect] has been arrested from the scene."

Naseem had been in police custody since 2018 when he was accused of having committed blasphemy by claiming to be a prophet - a violation of Pakistan's strict blasphemy laws that can carry the death penalty for certain offences.

Al Jazeera -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/07/man-shot-dead-blasphemy-pakistan-courtroom-200729105816314.html

Thanks for voting

Once upon a time people rejected hadith and the general Muslim community began to label them Qur'anists. Over time, the name stuck with them, and much of them began to identify with the label.

But there were among them those who who did not like to identify as "Qur'anists" or other variation of this label such as "Quran alone Muslims." They argue that the Qur'an's message is God alone, not Qur'an alone, and that they identify with anyone who believe in God alone, Quranist or non-Quranist, Muslim or non-Muslim.

This is not a bad outlook. I need not to comment on how valuable it is in granting non-Quranists and non-Muslims the benefit of doubt. But the problem arises when it is now employed as a bulwark against any attempt at Qur'anists organizing as a distinct group.

The 'God aloners' and anti-religionists insist that such a move to better organize Qur'anists into religious community is at best unnecessary and at worst divisive.

They'll often call against forming sects and call for inclusivity. And of course they cite a number of verses to support their stance.

The assumption of the God aloners or the anti-religionists is that, if only we could lay aside our religious differences and unite under the banner of God, alone, then we could birth a better world.

It seem intuitive but it is false. In such case, you could as well ask the people to lay aside God, after all retaining God in the equation excludes atheists and agnostics, which ironically is contrary to the "inclusivity" mantra.

But even if we decide to ignore the atheists/agnostics, the umbrella of God alone is insufficient to unite and bond people from all opposing and mutually exclusive faiths. As, with or without religion people differ on socio-cultural and political issues, and religion is in part an avenue for those who agree on certain issues.

What happens when religious communities are abolished to build an all encompassing inclusive God alone community? Well, think of it as the outcome of separating the Church from the State.

People will dispute on how to operate such a community, and they'll segregate into social organizations and political parties that are representative of their personal views. These organizations and parties are simply sects - the very sects that the Qur'an supposedly forewarns.   

The God aloners propose a community built upon love, tolerance, peace and knowledge, but what they forget is that people have vastly contrasting understanding of these values. I know it might sound like an argument for moral relativism, but it's just the reality of humanity.

In order for any community to be founded upon the so called human values, these values ought to be defined in theory and application, something that religion accomplishes with scripture and traditions - which the God aloners and anti-relgionists seek to downplay.

If human values are the utmost concern of God aloners, then they should endorse move by Qur'anists to organize themselves as a formal group outside the internet, after all, the Qur'anist ultimate goal is build a community that embodies these values through the observing the Qur'an.

Now, let's address inclusivity.

The anti-religionists or God aloners often talk of inclusivity and discourage Qur'anists from organizing themselves into a distinct and more cohesive community like the sunnites or shiites. The idea of excluding people based on religious difference seem abhorrent to them.

But what do Qur'anist stand to gain from this mindset? The sunnites and shiites, and the non-Muslims don't even acknowledge Qur'anist existence. Or if they do, they mostly regard the Qur'anist with distrust or scorn.

Remember the common sayings about "strength in numbers", "united we stand and divided we fall". These highlight everything wrong with the God aloners, the anti-religionist/sectarian.

Humans have historically been divided by views - religious, social, cultural or political. Groups that organized and defined themselves far succeeded in passing down their their views or basically their side of the story, than groups who remained isolated, unorganized and individualist.

So today, all religious groups, the sunnites, the shiites, the ahmadiyas, the catholics, Jehovah witness etc, they all organize themselves into communities that not only share their outlook, but also serve to protect and support them.

On the flip side, the Qur'anists are barely organized. This is bad enough, but then you have "God aloners", anti-religionists in their midst further dissuading any serious attempt by Qur'anists to organize.

This is improper. What would've been proper of the "God aloners or anti-religionists" would be for them to also venture into sunnite or shiite media and foster the inclusivity and individualist mindset among the people. But they don't.

And thus, by fostering this mindset only among Qur'anites, they're condemning the Qur'anites of the 21st century to the same fate as the Qur'anites of the 7th century - gradual and ultimate fading to obscurity in favor of the contemporary religious groups.

Peace

[Phase 1: Neo-Sunnite Phase]

Every Muslim revise their beliefs and ideals with time. Having been in the community for 7 years now, my views have radically modified. And it's kind of interesting to see other Muslims adopt views I've formerly adopted and revere those views as if they were the holy grail.

But there is no holy grail, everything is gray. Our past and present are constantly shaping our perception of reality which in turn influence our beliefs, leading us through varying phases of the Quranist doctrine.

Phase 1: Neo-Sunnite Phase

A.k.a Shabir Ally Phase

These are sunnites/shittes that already question the validity of hadith. They speak about the dangers of 'over reliance' on hadith or hadith literalism. They're not opposed to hadith, though. In fact, they see them themselves as Ahlul sunnah/bayt and may vocally oppose Qur'an alone.

Examples - Mufti Abu Layth al Maliki, Asra Nomani, Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah etc.

Phase 2: Conservative Qur'anist

A.k.a Rashad Khalifa Phase

This is the original phase of Quranists. All hadith are rejected. But their interpretation of Qur'an may lean close to orthodoxy - 5 daily salat similar in procedure to sunnites, hijra calendar based Sawn/fasting, some even believe in amputating thieves, female headscarf, wife beating and may forbid any form of bank interest.

One thing, though they're very strict with the doctrine of God Alone, so they won't join sunnites in salat. Plus, they lean more closely to literal interpretation, and indulge in polemics and rebuttals.

Examples - Sam Gerrans, Ahmed Subhy Mansur, Amra94

Phase 3: Moderate Qur'anist

Qur'anists often begin as conservatives, where they acquire thoughts from the websites like submission.org or quran-islam.org. But with time they accumulate doubts and questions the conservatives never address.

And so, soon they begin to do their own research - compare translations, seek more context, consult classical Arabic dictionary. And then derive their own unique interpretation or straight abandon the conservative thought on the subject.

These are the moderate Qur'anists. They're not too literal in their reading to double down on faulty interpretation, while yet they're not so liberal as to forget the Qur'an is the standard.

Examples - Edip to a less extent. But the clearest example would be reel.   

Phase 4: Liberal Quranist

Far from literalism, their position is one of pluralism. Their motto is "God Alone" rather than "Qur'an Alone". They represent a form of 'anti-religion' reaction to human divisions that conforming to a defined set of belief breeds.

The God alone mantra is an admission of just anyone who believes in God, regardless of individual position on the scriptures.

So, they do not lean towards orthodoxy as the conservatives. But then again, the implication of this is that they're more likely to tolerate and even partake in sunni doctrines as salat, which conservatives denounce as idolatory for sunnites invoke Muhammad in their salat.

Examples - goodlogic, huruf, Man of Faith etc.


Phase 5: Post Qur'anist

People in these phase have ultimately resolved that the Qur'an is flawed and cannot be fully trusted or that Qur'an alone was never the message of Islam. So these ex-Quranists withdraw from Islam entirely, take a sabbatical or return to Sunnism.

Examples - diamentinehoneybunch; used to be a regular poster here, now a deist. Veedu vidz, now an atheist YouTuber. I also think Jafar is in this phase.

It's kind of a depressing phase. I say this from my own experience here last year. Thinking about it, and all the effort I invested in the previous phases almost bring me to tears.


Phase 6: Renaissance Qur'anist

A.k.a the Jordan Peterson Phase

This is my current phase. It is a phase where you come to lower your standard and better appreciate the point of religion.

You're never turning back to "This is the law of God" or "This is the final word" mindset. But after observing what has become of irreligious societies, the once united people now pitted against themselves over material and trivial issues, consumed with greed, lust and spite, while the religious communities in these societies remain level headed, you gain a new found appreciation for religion.

Peace.

There is a saying among Muslims that "Qur'an alone is just an internet thing." If you log on to this free-minds forum or the Quraniyoon subreddit, you'll find Muslims practicing exclusively by Qur'an. But if you go out of your house, you won't meet any Muslim but Hadithists.

The immediate purpose of religion for most people is to fit in with a community, to belong, to have an identity. The promised eternal salvation of faith is only a secondary expectation of most religionists.

I've been looking into this for a while now. The reason why Hadith based Islam came to dominate Qur'an based Islam is that the latter is more distinctly defined ideology.

Let me explain;

Suppose you have a sunnite Muslimah in headscarf and a Quranite Muslimah without an headscarf on opposite ends of the street. Who is more likely to be identified as Muslim? And who is more likely to be approached by fellow Muslims or non-Muslims curious about Islam?

When people think of Islam, they think of the Muslima with the headscarf. To most passerby, the Muslima without the headscarf could as well be a non-Muslim.

Religious communities distinguish themselves with some kind of brand for recognition, such as headscarf, beards, mosques, Eid in traditional Islam. These brands are essential to help them stand out, to market the religion and bond adherents.

Qur'anists on the other hand don't have any form of brand. Qur'anists don't have to don headscarf, sport a bead, build a site for congregation, celebrate Eid, and don't even have a uniform procedure of prayer.

Not that there is anything Islamically wrong here. But a religious community cannot blossom this way. A religious community without brands will lack any cohesion or recognition.

If the earliest Muslims were Qur'anists, we can assume they quickly lost out to the Sunnites/Shiites as today's Qur'anists, because they differed too considerably among themselves and their creed was too dilute and lacking in brand for recognition or cohesion.

Peace.

[Lets see what even the Qur'an states;]

I just found out that for a while now, race as a social construct have taken root in mainstream conversation on race. On Google, all of my searches led to articles after article supporting the theory that race is a social construct.

Is Race really a social construct?

Lets see what even the Qur'an states;

"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female, and have made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one  another. Indeed the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted" [Quran 49:13]

Nation and tribes bear more than cultural differences between them. You can tell from observing the Himba tribe of Namibia and Amazon tribe of Brazil. Let aside their cultural difference, these tribes have unique features that identify them; skin color, hair texture, body hair - the collection of these unique features are what we term as race.

Hence, the Qur'an itself confirms race as something God Himself created, not a man-made social construct.

Let's look at science;

People who deem race as a social construct assume that race merely separate people based on superficial features but this is not true.

I took pharmacology classes in my college years. In few drugs, it is highly important that race of a patient be known in order to determine the suitable dosing regimen.

East Asians tend to be shorter & less athletic than Europeans or Africans. Africans tend to be stronger and faster than other races. African women tend to weigh more than European or Asian women. There is clear correlation between race and IQ, with some races consistently out-perfoming others on average in IQ tests.

As you see, race is not learned. It is reality. Sure, there is no such thing as 'race gene', but a sum total of all the genes defines race.

So why do people push race as a social construct?

To me, there are 4 reasons for this:

A. To justify mass immigration and ethnic replacement.
B. To promote interracial marriages.
C. To curb racism.
D. To curb race based privileges, affirmative action, racial guilt, racial stereotypes.

 

[My experience at the hands of modesty cultists]

My experience at the hands of modesty cultists

I've lived in the Muslim world, a GCC country for the past few years. I needed to see a radiologist for pelvis ultrasound earlier this week. Ultrasound is expensive and my health insurance only covers clinic visit, not hospitals. So I decide to find a clinic with ultrasound facilities and partner to my insurance company.

I call one of the branch of the clinic I've been recommend and they tell me their radiologist is out on leave for a week. I call the only other branch in the town and I'm told that their radiologist is a female and thus I can't take the ultrasound with them!

Now, I needed this ultrasound to figure what is wrong with me, so that I can take real medicine instead of pain relievers. But because of modesty/hijab culture, I get discriminated for being male. I now have to find another clinic, partner with my insurance company and with available ultrasound facility, and hopefully a male radiologist.

How hijab/modesty culture degrades women

Rotherham Grooming Gangs:

"Muslim girls are good and pure because they dress modestly, covering down to their ankles and wrists, and covering their crotch area. They stay virgins until marriage. They are our girls.

"White girls and non-Muslim girls are bad because you dress like slags. You show the curves of your bodies (showing the gap between your thighs means you're asking for it) and therefore you're immoral. White girls sleep with hundreds of men. You are the other girls. You are worthless and you deserve to be gang-raped."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html

The worst of hijab/modesty culture in the Muslim world

In the Muslim world,

It is preferred for woman to slip and hurt herself, than for her headscarf to slip off her head in presence of non-related men.

Regardless of individual qualities and achievements, generally, women without hijab are less valued compared to ones with hijab.

It is norm for a doctor to refuse to examine patient of the opposite gender, on religious and cultural grounds.

It is norm for patients, especially female patients to go back home without examination by a doctor, if no doctor of their gender is available.


If the Lord of the universe was so concerned about modesty or hijab, why make clothes so difficult for the creatures to access?

People need to be enlightened. Our ancestors barely wore clothes. They didn't have easy access to malls and boutiques of affordable nylon, cotton, polyester and wool clothes. If they wanted to cover from cold, they sought crude animal skin.They had to risk their lives hunting games with crude tools in the wilderness to get a skin that barely covered them.

They did not have bathrooms or labor rooms, they were nomadic. If they wanted to shower or deliver their babies, they did this publicly. 

Many indigenous tribes today far from civilization live harmoniously with barely any cloth. They are not 'sexually harassing' themselves all day and having orgies all night.

If the Lord of the universe is so concerned about hijab and modesty, why design human anatomy such that essential medical procedures necessitates nudity?

To examine their patients, physicians often require certain degree of nudity from patients. I am certified to conduct Basic Life Support, if say a victim is left unconscious in a public place, the procedures requires baring the torso and compressing the chest between the breast with my hands to rescue the victim.

4 reasons why Hijab/modesty culture is toxic

Hijab/modesty culture is toxic in that it perverts nudity, so much so that gymnophobia persist in the human minds at the expense of hospitality. Nudity is not the problem, sexualizing nudity is the problem and hijab culture sexualize nudity by always associating it with sex.

It teaches people to look down upon those not compliant - "this woman is pure and noble like wrapped candy because she wears hijab, that woman is impure and dishonorable like an unwrapped candy infested with flies because she don't wear hijab."

It is toxic because, it constantly associate nudity with pornography and adultery. Ironically, hijab culture feeds these two because it build sexual repression that eventually explodes into sexual obsession, which is the final step to porn and adultery.

It is toxic because instead of teaching men more on self control and respecting every woman; it teaches women self-shame, that their bodies are problem and that the burden of preserving the family and society honor lay upon them.

[1. January '19]

1. January '19

Recall in January my thread on Qur'an support for Geocentric or Flat earth model of the universe. My sole intention was not necessarily to cite the Qur'an as wrong, it was to draw attention to what I find the Qur'an actually states Vs what people say the Qur'an states. My finding on the Qur'an left me doubting the heliocentric model, and for once I decided to consider the flat fixed earth argument.

What this post is about is not necessarily on the Qur'an, but on Muslims' approach to Qur'an, how this approach breed so much negativity that I've given up on the community, whether the Qur'an alone or traditional.


2. How do Muslims approach the Qur'an?

They view the Qur'an as;

The literal, infallible and perfectly preserved word of God.

This approach to Islam is WRONG as I will show, but it is also very toxic because all forms of Muslim fanaticism and terrorism is predicated on this view of the Qur'an.


3. Let's see a few verses of Qur'an.

Qur'an 96.02 -  Createth man from alaq.
Qur'an 23: 12-14 - Verily We created man from a product of wet earth. Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; Then fashioned We the drop a alaqa, then fashioned We the alaqa little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

3. Alaqa meaning in Arabic

One of the stages of embryo or fetus is an 'alaqa' or 'alaq', according to Qur'an. Here are the meanings of 'alaqa' in Arabic; 'something that clings', 'blood clot', 'leeches'.

4. Meaning of Alaqa in Qur'an in Muslim history

All through Muslim history, 'blood clot' have been generally agreed as the meaning of 'alaqa' in relation to embryology in Qur'an. This is so because, blood or clot was generally taught in the 7th century as an early stage of embryo during gestation. All the earliest tafsir agree. You can see why majority of Qur'an translation translate the term as clot.

As we all know, the implication of this is that the Qur'an verse is wrong. Never is the embryo a clot. But, the Qur'an cannot be wrong, because it is the literal, infallible and preserved word of God.

5. Meaning of Alaqa in Qur'an at 21st century

So, in the 20th century, when it was proven that the embryo is never blood, some Qur'an translators and Muslim scholars began to reconsider alternative meaning for the word 'alaqa'. "Leeches, leech like clot, clinging substance, embryo" are all words that scholars and translators have now referred to alaqa.

6. What does Alaqa really mean in Qur'an?

Whether we believe Qur'an meant 'alaqa' as blood clot or not is beside the point. Recall, we have always agreed the Qur'an is clear, that it delivers its message with pin point precision in choice of word. The point here is that Qur'an uses a word that also mean 'blood clot' to describe an embryonic stage. This negates the infallibility of the text, and thus the text's divinity or preservation.

NB: Also, see Qur'an 86:5-7, where it seemingly states that sex fluids or gametes comes out from 'between the backbone and the ribs.' This is incorrect.


7. What is wrong in the Muslim community

My problem with the Muslim community is just how much these concerns with the Qur'an are either overlooked or concealed from the public, in fear of raising doubts, in order to preserve the view of Qur'an infallibility.

8. Consequence of proclaiming the Qur'an is infallible

What happens when we approach the Qur'an as the infallible and perfect? We're inadvertently supporting the fanatics and terrorists. We may not agree with their interpretation of the Qur'an, but we agree with them that the Qur'an is infallible. This is enough green light for them to apply what ever they understand as Qur'anic; amputating thieves, slavery, offensive jihad, jizya, persecuting Qur'an critics or blasphemers, gender inequality in testimonies and inheritance  etc.

Peace.

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/pakistani-student-kills-professor-over-mixed-gender-reception-1.1553095644835

While the rest of the world sympathize with Muslims over the the loss of 49 parishioners in ChristChurch Mosque shooting, some Muslim student in another part of the world continue to feed the hate and resentment of Muslims by coldly murdering his own professor for hosting a non-gender segregated gathering and for a history of blasphemy against Islam.

I know not all Pakistanis are like this student, I have wonderful Pakistani friends, but it seem to me for several years now that Pakistan is really steep in Muslim fanaticism. I guess this is to be expected in a country whose president openly back antiquated blasphemy law and recommends it for all countries.

It seem the Western media have elected to forgo this story in the light of recent terror attack against Muslims. I don't see it in any of their sites. Probably because it is not just a good time to report misdeed by Muslims especially when such deeds are driven by religious fervor. This is understandable but it is  not the right thing.

Yeah, there is the legitimate fear that bad reports about Muslims does play into anti-Muslim narratives that may eventually culminate in the like of ChristChurch Mosque massacre. No media outlet want to be blamed for hate or fear mongering against Muslims. But the job of the press to report events unbiasely must take precedence over all. I mean, this man killed his own country man! For a very insignificant reason. And we do not want to report?

If we want to end anti-Muslim hate, the first step is a honest conversation on mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islam as a socio-cultural and legal system. Of course, this is a hard conversation to begin. And all are running from it. But it is inevitable.

In my next thread, I'll be exploring why phobia for Muslims exist. I do not condone phobia for anyone, but I want to objectively explore the root of this phobia which unfortunately a lot of Muslims have blamed on the media and governments for demonizing Muslim, even though critics of Muslims/Islam continue to bemoan political correctness on the part of the media and governments on discourses pertaining to Muslim excesses.