There's a new global courage to call out bad behavior, culture and values of previously untouchable groups. Accountability is for *everyone*. Including Islam's horror-storied problems with modernity
I’ve been forced to think about cousin marriage more in the past year than I ever would have ventured to or wanted. And one thing I learned is that cousin marrying cultures are the ones most controlling of women and most abusive. The tribal logic seems to go that our women are ours and if you don’t control YOUR women, then they will be ours, too! And this goes will all kinds of other clannish violence extending past sexual conquest.
These types of cultures have clan violence baked into the equation. Consider US Appalachia which is a punchline or incest and blood feuds and consider that they are downright cosmopolitan compared to even modern day Pakistan which is a majority inbred cousin marrying population.
You might have a point. It's an interesting point because as I understand it, first cousin marriage isn't as genetically harmful as once thought, although the around 100-year-old incest taboo surrounding it can still be a powerful force. It wasn't terribly uncommon among Europeans, even in the New World, to marry cousins. I'm not sure how abusive they were although they were certainly controlling--something we could say about all generations of men before First Wave feminism began slowly changing things. In my mother's day, it would have been unheard-of for her to marry a cousin although she was very close with one of her first cousins. One of her distant aunts, I think, a generation perhaps before Mom, was pressured by her family to marry her cousin even though she didn't want to; he was considered, in their eyes, "a good catch," meaning he made a decent living. Never mind the fact that he was an alcoholic, this was the years before Friends of Bill W.
Because of the more recent scientific belief that cousin-marrying is okay (as opposed to brother-sister marriage which the Egyptians proved was a bad idea), I'm not sure I can link it definitively to truly abusive/violent cultures. We may have banned something based on misinformation, although I don't really want to see it come back (and that's an emotional, not rational feeling).
Appalachia is famously violent but they've managed to become a bit more civilized. Our part of the world pretty much requires it; the Islamic world, by and large, doesn't.
Oh, that looks good! Pinned to my taskbar so I can listen after I'm done with the podcast I'm listening to. Would love to get into the weeds on that one.
A country that turns it's back on protecting it's children or is prepared to sacrifice them for some cultural ideology, is a failed state. The UK is a failed state.
Remember, ALL the laws of Islam (such as illegal homosexuality) are quite acceptable under one condition: jihad. As long as you are a jihadi you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT including drinking, debauchery, homosexuality, drugs - anything (with exception, of course, to apostasy). Just as long as you are actively killing infidels, it's all good.
They really aren't twisting the Quran. In Shahih Muslim hadith 1438a Mohammad tells two of his followers that its fine to rape slave women and not impregnate them. Pleasing to their god to take them as slaves, Arabic Women, and pleasing to their g-d to rape them. It's not really surprising to those individuals who know about this book that this is what they're doing in the British Commonwealths.
But as I recall, it also, elsewhere, enjoins followers to treat other women well, and in fact during the medieval times non-Muslims were more protected (discriminated against, but not murdered and protected to some degree by the state). The Koran is like the Bible: Lots of horrific and positive injunctions, many of them contradictory. Maybe the key is to hold Muslims accountable for not keeping up with the rest of us morality-wise.
I have to ask the Hadith on that. Sahih Muslim is also called Book of Marriage and there are more than just one verse or Hadith on the sexual degradation of women. In fact the Quran starts with this gem of the Patriarchy:
"Qur’an 4.34: “Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth; and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands’) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.”
There's far more than these admonishing and encouraging Violence against Women and Unbelievers.
Personally, I call The Quran The Satanic Verses. The Opposer in all his forms opposes Peace, which this book opposes.
I'm horrified by the violence and the shitty treatment of women in the Bible, too. I agree with you that the Koran is, frankly, barbaric, as is the Bible, but that clearly not everyone is a sexual psychopath who subscribes to the former. So plenty are questioning it. That's why I can't damn everyone; if they ALL followed the Quran to the letter the entire world would be a hellhole of violence. Let's note that islam's been around for 1,300 years and hasn't gone on a genocidal tear against Unbelievers, although it sure does have a bug up its ass about Jews (even so...no honest attempts at Jewish genocide, despite the clear mandate).
Why do you think more Muslims *aren't* like the rape gangs and terrorists?
Labia, The Qur'an does not have the same structure or status as the books of the Bible. You can't reason about the Quran based on what you know or believe about the Bible (as in the Bible says awful things about women as well, so...).
The surahs in the Qur'an are of two kinds, the Medina surahs and the Meccan surahs. The Medina surahs correspond to what Mohammed said God told him when he, Mohammed, was in Medina. When Islam became warlike and began expanding through slaughter, God told Mohammed very different things. These are the Meccan surahs and they are considered to abrogate the earlier Medina surahs. The Medina surahs are the mostly peaceful ones. The ones instructing Muslims to kill and subjugate all non-believers are the Meccan surahs.
Also, Islam is not a religion in the way Christianity is a religion. Islam is also a legal system and a system of governance.
To Provide an opposition point. For illustration The same was said of Tariq Ramadan¹. Then as soon as women came forward accusing him of rape the woodwork exploded going back twenty years on rapes and sexual assaults on women² . I'm probably not going to convince you and that's OK that's what I love about Western Society, all I can say is I would never allow an Abdulhum around my female family or friends.
Someone once likened Islam to the dumbest kid in class who lags behind everyone and vents his frustrations through violence and simply causing problems wherever he goes.
I agree, but not all people within more problematic cultures are the same or think alike.
I find it interesting that so many critics of this piece focused on the 15-20% of positive comments I made about Islam and ignored the 80% critical comments that they must surely have agreed with.
That's why we need to talk more about Islam and remind people that they're not a monolithic hive of hypersexual terrorist drones.
Great article. I like the 360-degree religious whack. I presume you are in the UK? Welcome to the deepest end of the shit hole then. Most importantly, shipping everyone where they came from won’t do it (entirely). It’s about a global overhaul of “belief” systems whether we like it or not. That includes everything from worshipping a corpse on a cross, the club of the chosen ones and Mohammed’s imaginary pony ride into heaven. It will be very difficult to get all this stuck stuff going. But what must must.
I'm not in the UK, but I'm in the Commonwealth: Canada. And originally from the US. I actually see it as more of a law 'n' order thing. We need to put these mofos away if we can't send them back. As much as I hate Trump, I'm seeing the value in an indefinite Muslim ban for new immigrants, including, perhaps, refugees (that would be a difficult one!) I think religions are a good idea, they seem to have evolved very early in our evolution (although we can't know for certain what the cavemen were doing with their weird painted bones et al) but we need to keep religion firmly in check. And they have to adhere to our laws and human rights.
I don't think you can force people to not be religious anymore than you could force them to voluntarily not breathe. It seems to be firmly lodged in our hearts and brains and if it had developed, say, 2,000 years ago it would be easier to say "Fine, let's un-develop it." But I think spirituality is at our core.
One thing needs pointing out: the problems don't arise out of Islam alone but from its intersection with Arab/Middle Eastern culture. You combine highly aggressive religion with tribal societies only one lifetime away from pre-oil poverty, add lots of chips-on-the-shoulder over centuries-ago glories and you have what we have...
The problem is lack of "cultural competence", these people want the benefits of human rights, democracy and modernity but they have no capacity to build such structures themselves so can only gain access by becoming minorities in the advanced world. IE they want the benefits of free speech but don't have the values to accept *others* free speech that offends them - they demand benefit of human rights but will not reciprocate back to others.
You bring up a very good point, and something that we could perhaps use as a leveraging tool with the Middle East: Very few of them get to come here and that won't change until they clean up their governments. I don't know what that would look like and I don't think the US can or should define it. Let the Middle East figure it out on their own. Because this is *their* problem, not ours. The victims will have to drive the change, and one reason why I don't believe they're 'all' bad (the Islamophobe argument) is because Muslims are victimized by their own far more than they are by 'Others'. We know there are many in the Middle East who want more human rights and freedoms, that's why we see periodic uprisings, however failed or only temporarily successful (you know Syria will be back to business as usual in another few weeks or so). Maybe what will force their hand is cutting off access to America (and, I'd hope, Canada too) and I'll bet Europe would follow suit.
There are plenty of Arab intellectuals who have identified the problems inherent in Middle Eastern governments, but of course the fanatics in power don't want to listen. The knowledge is there. Maybe if we cut them off they'll reform themselves. Or maybe they'll jack up the price of oil. Which would be a good reason to get off oil, which we should have done ages ago. Just as Canada is considering today whether we should be relying on America so much instead of making our own goods.
You understood my point precisely... The alternative I was alluding to were Muslim but-not-ME cultures like Malaysia & Indonesia who have been far more successful in advancement and less conflictual with Western cultures.
This is why the arguments about Israel are so misguided - even if they got their dream and there was no Israel the region would still be a conflict zone due to the underlying tribal social structure. The only periods of stability in the ME were during colonial eras - either European or Ottoman. Not many nations have successfully got several ethno-cultural groups living alongside peacefully like Switzerland - even Belgium is almost a failed state with the Flemish vs Walloon animosity!
It focuses on the fact this immigration was justified by labour needs - of industries that were soon shut down (!) and left disaffected minority groups AND their hosts. We are facing the same scenario with AI coming soon.
I think it’s very telling that the other Islamic countries around or near Israel aren’t willing to take any Gazans. Apparently that didn’t work out so well for Jordan awhile back.
Totally agree with you on if the Israelis disappeared tomorrow, the Gazans could never live in peace. Some want to, for sure, but not enough…and Hamas wouldn’t allow it any way. What would happen if both Israelis and Hamas disappeared at the same time? I still think there would be no peace. Hate to say it but Muslims just can’t seem to handle democracy, whether it looks like ours or the systems in Western Europe.
In the US it’s difficult to point out that based on FBI statistics while young black men (15 - 34) comprise just 2% of the population, they commit about half of the nation’s homicides. A rate fifty times that of the average American. No one in power wants to hear those facts. Just like the Pakistani rapists in the UK.
There is a concept I encountered which labels this "wrongful noticing", ie acknowledging facts that are inconvenient to the progressive narrative. It comes from the writings of Helen Dale & Lorenzo Warby: https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/worshipping-the-future
This is a pair of very smart fellow Australians who have endeavoured to "put all the pieces together" and cover the entirety of the woke war in one publication. Highly recommended.
Well well well. Are we dreaming. Are we carried away with the way Mr Musk has "opened" up the debate about the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs. Just consider the response in most parts of Europe by the he is interfering in our nation comments. Do you think that the Muslim organisation is going to sit back and accept this attack on their faith. Do you think that others will take up your mission considering their personal safety. Think about the Rushdie on going story. You are doing good.
Glad you liked it, ha ha. I don't think he should be calling for Starmer's resignation, but I think he mightily embarrassed the UK by blowing it out for the entire world to see. Maybe the other Europeans are afraid he'll air *their* dirty laundry next.
Think about what a different religion Christianity would be if Jesus, like Mohamed, beheaded enemies.
I’ve been forced to think about cousin marriage more in the past year than I ever would have ventured to or wanted. And one thing I learned is that cousin marrying cultures are the ones most controlling of women and most abusive. The tribal logic seems to go that our women are ours and if you don’t control YOUR women, then they will be ours, too! And this goes will all kinds of other clannish violence extending past sexual conquest.
These types of cultures have clan violence baked into the equation. Consider US Appalachia which is a punchline or incest and blood feuds and consider that they are downright cosmopolitan compared to even modern day Pakistan which is a majority inbred cousin marrying population.
You might have a point. It's an interesting point because as I understand it, first cousin marriage isn't as genetically harmful as once thought, although the around 100-year-old incest taboo surrounding it can still be a powerful force. It wasn't terribly uncommon among Europeans, even in the New World, to marry cousins. I'm not sure how abusive they were although they were certainly controlling--something we could say about all generations of men before First Wave feminism began slowly changing things. In my mother's day, it would have been unheard-of for her to marry a cousin although she was very close with one of her first cousins. One of her distant aunts, I think, a generation perhaps before Mom, was pressured by her family to marry her cousin even though she didn't want to; he was considered, in their eyes, "a good catch," meaning he made a decent living. Never mind the fact that he was an alcoholic, this was the years before Friends of Bill W.
Because of the more recent scientific belief that cousin-marrying is okay (as opposed to brother-sister marriage which the Egyptians proved was a bad idea), I'm not sure I can link it definitively to truly abusive/violent cultures. We may have banned something based on misinformation, although I don't really want to see it come back (and that's an emotional, not rational feeling).
Appalachia is famously violent but they've managed to become a bit more civilized. Our part of the world pretty much requires it; the Islamic world, by and large, doesn't.
Neither do their Western allies.
I haven't had time to watch this, but am pretty confident you will find their opinions agreeable. I certainly have over the years.
"Grooming Gangs:" Why White Girls? Why Immigrant Men? Solid Ground #104
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lduLCzYUC1Y
Oh, that looks good! Pinned to my taskbar so I can listen after I'm done with the podcast I'm listening to. Would love to get into the weeds on that one.
A country that turns it's back on protecting it's children or is prepared to sacrifice them for some cultural ideology, is a failed state. The UK is a failed state.
Remember, ALL the laws of Islam (such as illegal homosexuality) are quite acceptable under one condition: jihad. As long as you are a jihadi you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT including drinking, debauchery, homosexuality, drugs - anything (with exception, of course, to apostasy). Just as long as you are actively killing infidels, it's all good.
So what's your specific concern regarding this?
Qurans all about the Sexual Terrorism.
But it’s weird how not every Muslim man is a sexual terrorist.
They really aren't twisting the Quran. In Shahih Muslim hadith 1438a Mohammad tells two of his followers that its fine to rape slave women and not impregnate them. Pleasing to their god to take them as slaves, Arabic Women, and pleasing to their g-d to rape them. It's not really surprising to those individuals who know about this book that this is what they're doing in the British Commonwealths.
But as I recall, it also, elsewhere, enjoins followers to treat other women well, and in fact during the medieval times non-Muslims were more protected (discriminated against, but not murdered and protected to some degree by the state). The Koran is like the Bible: Lots of horrific and positive injunctions, many of them contradictory. Maybe the key is to hold Muslims accountable for not keeping up with the rest of us morality-wise.
I have to ask the Hadith on that. Sahih Muslim is also called Book of Marriage and there are more than just one verse or Hadith on the sexual degradation of women. In fact the Quran starts with this gem of the Patriarchy:
"Qur’an 4.34: “Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth; and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands’) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.”
There's far more than these admonishing and encouraging Violence against Women and Unbelievers.
Personally, I call The Quran The Satanic Verses. The Opposer in all his forms opposes Peace, which this book opposes.
I'm horrified by the violence and the shitty treatment of women in the Bible, too. I agree with you that the Koran is, frankly, barbaric, as is the Bible, but that clearly not everyone is a sexual psychopath who subscribes to the former. So plenty are questioning it. That's why I can't damn everyone; if they ALL followed the Quran to the letter the entire world would be a hellhole of violence. Let's note that islam's been around for 1,300 years and hasn't gone on a genocidal tear against Unbelievers, although it sure does have a bug up its ass about Jews (even so...no honest attempts at Jewish genocide, despite the clear mandate).
Why do you think more Muslims *aren't* like the rape gangs and terrorists?
Labia, The Qur'an does not have the same structure or status as the books of the Bible. You can't reason about the Quran based on what you know or believe about the Bible (as in the Bible says awful things about women as well, so...).
The surahs in the Qur'an are of two kinds, the Medina surahs and the Meccan surahs. The Medina surahs correspond to what Mohammed said God told him when he, Mohammed, was in Medina. When Islam became warlike and began expanding through slaughter, God told Mohammed very different things. These are the Meccan surahs and they are considered to abrogate the earlier Medina surahs. The Medina surahs are the mostly peaceful ones. The ones instructing Muslims to kill and subjugate all non-believers are the Meccan surahs.
Also, Islam is not a religion in the way Christianity is a religion. Islam is also a legal system and a system of governance.
To Provide an opposition point. For illustration The same was said of Tariq Ramadan¹. Then as soon as women came forward accusing him of rape the woodwork exploded going back twenty years on rapes and sexual assaults on women² . I'm probably not going to convince you and that's OK that's what I love about Western Society, all I can say is I would never allow an Abdulhum around my female family or friends.
1)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
2)https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n74n6q1vo.amp
Wholeheartedly agree! Time to speak truth to suicidal empathy.
Someone once likened Islam to the dumbest kid in class who lags behind everyone and vents his frustrations through violence and simply causing problems wherever he goes.
<sigh> You may have a point there....
All people are equal; all cultures are not.
I agree, but not all people within more problematic cultures are the same or think alike.
I find it interesting that so many critics of this piece focused on the 15-20% of positive comments I made about Islam and ignored the 80% critical comments that they must surely have agreed with.
That's why we need to talk more about Islam and remind people that they're not a monolithic hive of hypersexual terrorist drones.
“Woke right?
New one on me.
https://growsomelabia.substack.com/p/here-comes-the-woke-right-and-it
Oy.
"Islamism" is no "bastard child" of Islam, it is Islam properly and faithfully done.
Great article. I like the 360-degree religious whack. I presume you are in the UK? Welcome to the deepest end of the shit hole then. Most importantly, shipping everyone where they came from won’t do it (entirely). It’s about a global overhaul of “belief” systems whether we like it or not. That includes everything from worshipping a corpse on a cross, the club of the chosen ones and Mohammed’s imaginary pony ride into heaven. It will be very difficult to get all this stuck stuff going. But what must must.
I'm not in the UK, but I'm in the Commonwealth: Canada. And originally from the US. I actually see it as more of a law 'n' order thing. We need to put these mofos away if we can't send them back. As much as I hate Trump, I'm seeing the value in an indefinite Muslim ban for new immigrants, including, perhaps, refugees (that would be a difficult one!) I think religions are a good idea, they seem to have evolved very early in our evolution (although we can't know for certain what the cavemen were doing with their weird painted bones et al) but we need to keep religion firmly in check. And they have to adhere to our laws and human rights.
I don't think you can force people to not be religious anymore than you could force them to voluntarily not breathe. It seems to be firmly lodged in our hearts and brains and if it had developed, say, 2,000 years ago it would be easier to say "Fine, let's un-develop it." But I think spirituality is at our core.
One thing needs pointing out: the problems don't arise out of Islam alone but from its intersection with Arab/Middle Eastern culture. You combine highly aggressive religion with tribal societies only one lifetime away from pre-oil poverty, add lots of chips-on-the-shoulder over centuries-ago glories and you have what we have...
The problem is lack of "cultural competence", these people want the benefits of human rights, democracy and modernity but they have no capacity to build such structures themselves so can only gain access by becoming minorities in the advanced world. IE they want the benefits of free speech but don't have the values to accept *others* free speech that offends them - they demand benefit of human rights but will not reciprocate back to others.
You bring up a very good point, and something that we could perhaps use as a leveraging tool with the Middle East: Very few of them get to come here and that won't change until they clean up their governments. I don't know what that would look like and I don't think the US can or should define it. Let the Middle East figure it out on their own. Because this is *their* problem, not ours. The victims will have to drive the change, and one reason why I don't believe they're 'all' bad (the Islamophobe argument) is because Muslims are victimized by their own far more than they are by 'Others'. We know there are many in the Middle East who want more human rights and freedoms, that's why we see periodic uprisings, however failed or only temporarily successful (you know Syria will be back to business as usual in another few weeks or so). Maybe what will force their hand is cutting off access to America (and, I'd hope, Canada too) and I'll bet Europe would follow suit.
There are plenty of Arab intellectuals who have identified the problems inherent in Middle Eastern governments, but of course the fanatics in power don't want to listen. The knowledge is there. Maybe if we cut them off they'll reform themselves. Or maybe they'll jack up the price of oil. Which would be a good reason to get off oil, which we should have done ages ago. Just as Canada is considering today whether we should be relying on America so much instead of making our own goods.
You understood my point precisely... The alternative I was alluding to were Muslim but-not-ME cultures like Malaysia & Indonesia who have been far more successful in advancement and less conflictual with Western cultures.
This is why the arguments about Israel are so misguided - even if they got their dream and there was no Israel the region would still be a conflict zone due to the underlying tribal social structure. The only periods of stability in the ME were during colonial eras - either European or Ottoman. Not many nations have successfully got several ethno-cultural groups living alongside peacefully like Switzerland - even Belgium is almost a failed state with the Flemish vs Walloon animosity!
There is an excellent book about the effect of mass immigration on Western nations by Christopher Caldwell: https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/europes-absent-minded-revolution
It focuses on the fact this immigration was justified by labour needs - of industries that were soon shut down (!) and left disaffected minority groups AND their hosts. We are facing the same scenario with AI coming soon.
I think it’s very telling that the other Islamic countries around or near Israel aren’t willing to take any Gazans. Apparently that didn’t work out so well for Jordan awhile back.
Totally agree with you on if the Israelis disappeared tomorrow, the Gazans could never live in peace. Some want to, for sure, but not enough…and Hamas wouldn’t allow it any way. What would happen if both Israelis and Hamas disappeared at the same time? I still think there would be no peace. Hate to say it but Muslims just can’t seem to handle democracy, whether it looks like ours or the systems in Western Europe.
In the US it’s difficult to point out that based on FBI statistics while young black men (15 - 34) comprise just 2% of the population, they commit about half of the nation’s homicides. A rate fifty times that of the average American. No one in power wants to hear those facts. Just like the Pakistani rapists in the UK.
There is a concept I encountered which labels this "wrongful noticing", ie acknowledging facts that are inconvenient to the progressive narrative. It comes from the writings of Helen Dale & Lorenzo Warby: https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/worshipping-the-future
This is a pair of very smart fellow Australians who have endeavoured to "put all the pieces together" and cover the entirety of the woke war in one publication. Highly recommended.
Well well well. Are we dreaming. Are we carried away with the way Mr Musk has "opened" up the debate about the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs. Just consider the response in most parts of Europe by the he is interfering in our nation comments. Do you think that the Muslim organisation is going to sit back and accept this attack on their faith. Do you think that others will take up your mission considering their personal safety. Think about the Rushdie on going story. You are doing good.
Glad you liked it, ha ha. I don't think he should be calling for Starmer's resignation, but I think he mightily embarrassed the UK by blowing it out for the entire world to see. Maybe the other Europeans are afraid he'll air *their* dirty laundry next.