The Menace of the Feminists

The Menace of the Feminists (Part One)

In light of a recent long drawn out discussion I had about feminism and the dangers that this ideology poses to a person’s Imaan (Faith), I happened to stumble upon the following article this morning (which was being praised by an opponent of Islam):

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121129/NEWS01/311300074/Feminist-scholar-s-book-hijab-s-rise-earns-Grawemeyer-religion-award

Let’s first get the matter of the so-called Muslim Brotherhood (“Ikhwaan”) out of the way. The primary ideologue of the group was a black guy from Egypt named Sayyid Qutb. He came to America, got called the N-Word more times than he liked, went back home, and began to write books about the decadence of American society. He was not a religiously learned person, and mixed ideas from radical communism with his (mis)understanding of Islam. Among his blasphemous claims was that Allah is literally everywhere. Muslims believe that Allah exists without being in a location, as Imam Ali (the fourth Caliph) said: “One cannot ask about the where [location] of the One [Allah] Who created the whereabouts.” Allah was before space, distance, and direction. Allah is not an object or spatial entity; Allah does not have a size, shape, or dimensions. The Creator ABSOLUTELY does not need or resemble the creations. Whatever one imagines, Allah is different from that.

Sayyid Qutb said disparaging things not only about Allah, he also insulted the Prophets, such as claiming that Prophet Moses was a wishy-washy indecisive person. Perhaps his most notorious innovation (at least on the political/social level, for his blasphemies against God and the Prophets is in reality worse) was the claim that any leader who governs by other than Islam (even in a particular ruling) becomes a disbeliever (kaafir). And anyone who works in the government of such a ruler is a disbeliever, and anyone who does not rise up in rebellion against such a ruler is a disbeliever. This is the twisted “justification” that is used by these clowns the world over to go about blowing themselves and the elderly, women, children, and infants of whatever creed “in the name of ‘jihad’ and Islam.” These people do not represent Islam, and to deem such acts legitimate is in reality blasphemy and renders one out of the fold of Islam.

A little background on feminism…. First of all, many people are utterly inundated by secular supremacist propaganda day and night. The agents at the Ministries of Secular Thought (meaning, Hollywood, Madison Ave., academia, the music industry, ad nauseum) relentlessly pump out the same tired drivel intended to dupe the gullible and credulous. Some of this propaganda is specifically targeted to Muslim women in the West (as we can see in the Rand Report agenda by Cheryl Benard1) And sadly, many Muslim women have not been trained to analyze and critique the nonsense that these people spew.

Many young naïve self-identified Muslims who call themselves “feminists” typically have no idea what the origin of this ideology is—and I am talking here specifically about the feminism of that started in the 1960’s. It (feminism) had nothing to do with “empowering women” or granting “equal rights” for women and men—much less, adherence to the Qur’an and Sunnah. It’s stated purpose was to undermine and destroy the social order. Feminism is simply one of the weapons of Cultural-Marxism. Some naïve self-identified Muslim women may claim that they will take the “good parts” of feminism and discard the rest. But the underlying principles of feminism not only contradict Islam, feminism opposes and berates what the Prophet taught. Instead, if a Sister wishes to be empowered, she needs to learn her Religion well, and if on some instances Islam and feminism happen to intersect, then so be it.

Okay, now let’s get down to the article. Leila Ahmad (so the article says) was “alarmed” by seeing Muslim women wearing hijaab. Now what devout Muslim is going to be “alarmed” about fellow Muslims obeying Allah? If the person is not a devout (and knowledgeable Muslim) then their opinions on religious matters are immaterial. She then throws around the phrase: “male-dominated fundamentalism?” Now if she provided a legitimate religious critique of the Ikhwan, we could hear her out (but she doesn’t). What this type typically means is that they don’t like the fact that Islam has different laws pertaining to men and women. In other words, they don’t like what the Prophet taught, and in reality whoever doesn’t like what the Prophet taught (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) is not a Muslim.

The Cultural-Marxists are quick to throw around the term “rights.” …But they never mention who gave humans their rights? Humans couldn’t have given themselves their rights. In reality our rights come from God, and we know what rights we have from God by way of the Prophet of God, Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). This is one reason why Cultural-Marxism/feminism are absolutely antithetical to Islam. Muslims posit that our rights come from the Creator, and the Cultural-Marxists posit our rights come from their social-engineering think tanks.

Consequently, when a Muslim hears a feminists talk about “women’s rights” they need to understand that the feminist means something TOTALLY different from Islam teaches. In the mind of the feminist, women’s “rights” means total “equal-equality” (well, actually selective “equal-equality”). The feminist means that women should have identical rights to the man (well, in those cases when it would be to the woman’s advantage), and not only rights, but that women should, in essence, behave the same as men. However, we all know that the Prophet said one of the signs of the coming of the Judgment Day was the women and men would start to imitate each other—and he cursed the ones who would do so.

Ahmed speaks of a “patriarchal reading of Islam.” “Patriarchy” refers to a social order that is led by men.  This is how the feminists and Cultural-Marxists view patriarchy:

...So the image says.  This is the standard stuff that is fed to young impressionable women on the college campuses in in their "Women studies" courses.
(…So the image says. This is the standard stuff that is fed to young impressionable women on the college campuses in in their “Women studies” courses.)

Patriarchy, however, is the very social order that the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) commanded. Not surprisingly, this author finds the “Prophet’s reading of Islam” objectionable.

The article says: “Ahmed said she grew up in Egypt in the 1940s when ’90 percent of the women did not wear hijab, not because they were not pious Muslims, but because at that point the hijab was not thought to be a requirement of Islam.’” More Cultural-Marxist gibberish and subterfuge. First of all, it probably wasn’t that only 10% of all Egyptian women were wearing hijaab. She probably means those living in the major cities and were the ones most seduced by European miseudcation/values and the most infatuated with imitating “Massa.” Secondly, wearing the hijaab it is part of what is called “necessarily known” knowledge in Islam. All but the most horrendously ignorant Muslim knows that hijaab is an obligation. Consequently, the one who rejects it, has rejected a part of Islam, and the one who does so is not a Muslim (much less a pious Muslim). And if one did happen to be so horrendously ignorant about the ruling pertaining to the hijaab, then their ignorance of such is an enormity and would preclude them from being among the “pious.”

What Leila really means, and this is common with these pseudo-Muslim feminists is… well she says it right here: “Among those teachings, Ahmed said, is the notion that the hijab is mandatory even though many Muslims still dispute this.” SMH… No, no, no, Leila. MUSLIMS do NOT dispute that the hijaab is an obligation. Rand Corporation Apologists dispute that the hijaab is an obligation. As we said the obligation of the hijaab is a matter of Scholarly consensus (Ijmaa`) that is well-established and commonly known amongst the Muslims.

This is the greatest danger feminism/Cultural-Marxism poses to Muslims. Not only do the feminists reject particular Islamic judgments (which is kufr (disbelief)), their underlying claim is that ALL THE MUSLIMS FOR 1,300-1,400 years all conspired to conceal, alter, and distort basic Islamic rulings—or that all the Muslims for that time were ignorant of those basic Islamic rulings. In either case, they are claiming that Islam has not been reliably preserved and transmitted (which is also kufr). But, if the feminists believe that Islam has not been reliably preserved and transmitted, then they are claiming that Islam is a MAN-made doctrine of lies. And if that is the case, then… WHY IN THE WORLD ARE THEY CALLING THEMSELVES MUSLIMS?!? In reality, these people are munaafiqun (i.e., hypocrites who claim to be Muslim, while hating Islam in their hearts). And nowadays, these people tend to work with the secular supremacists in their effort to destroy Islam from within and from without (as we see with the Rand Report’s, “Democratic Partners in Islam”).

In summary, feminism leads to kufr (disbelief). I need to stick this in here because it’s important. Virtually ALL the feminists support homosexuality (well, let me say lesbianism, because, there are some feminists who don’t consider that men have the right to live). All except for the most extreme pseudo-Muslim says that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam (although someone needs to educate these guys here: http://www.france24.com/en/20121202-paris-france-homosexual-gay-friendly-mosque-condemned-muslim-leaders-–for the record, Muslims’ “fear” of homosexuality is not a “phobia” but it is based upon a rational fearing of Allah’s punishment for engaging in or supporting perverted abominable behavior). Given that Islam rejects homosexuality and feminism encourages it, then the two cannot be reconciled.

A person cannot call herself a “devout Muslim” and a “feminist” if they wish to be logically consistent (or a devout Muslim, for that matter). For Sisters serious about empowerment—and I am all for that—then let them be serious about acquiring the knowledge of the Deen. Let them put that knowledge into practice with sincerity. Let them be involved in the da`wah, and let them be lionesses in standing up and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil. And let them understand that one’s strength is based upon obedience to Allah—and not to some twisted Cultural-Marxist ideology. Sisters should strive (with their Brothers) to build stalwart families and communities devoted to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). And we should NOT let hypocritical, diseased-hearted, and empty-brained people divide and separate us from each other and from our yearning to enter Paradise.

With Allah is the success.

1That is, her piece entitled: “Democratic Partners in Islam.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s