Barrier Update, and men you should follow

O you who believe, when told “Space yourselves” in assemblies, then make space; God will make space for you. (58:11)

In August of 2012, I wrote a post announcing that a local masjid in my area was undergoing a construction project. The blueprint revealed that not only would women be relegated to a different area in the new masjid, but that the designated area would be much smaller. I asked you to write letters urging the committee to reconsider this. Many of you did, and I love you. I love you. Because no one else does this. No one.

The letters were not addressed by the reconstruction committee or any board member of the mosque. It is easy, I believe, to ignore the polite requests of the oppressed class–especially when there isn’t (as is expected when the oppressed class is women) a more aggressive group against which to compare them. When an “angry,” aggressive group of protesters exists, who demand justice and nothing short of it, whose calls for revolution are the sound of unapologetic battle cries, and who refuse to ensure the comfort of their oppressors through the language of appeasement, those very oppressors–in order to prove they are not bigots–scramble to address the needs of women who are “polite” and proceed to hold these women as shining examples of how change “should” be brought to a society. It happens with race, sex, (dis)ability. This is the “good feminist” vs “bad feminist” dichotomy created by white hetero-patriarchy; the truth, of course, is that the “good feminist” could not exist without the “bad” one. Without an angry seething woman to fear, patriarchs can ignore the gentle requests of the weeping one. When there is no one making “outrageous” unapologetic accusations against men, like you have deliberately monopolized Quranic exegesis and embedded patriarchal biases into widely accepted interpretations, men–freed of the burden of disproving perceptions of their bigotry–can impose enough pressure on the “good” feminist to ensure the unjust status quo is maintained. There is no looming threat to make them say, “Okay, okay, I’ll give HER what she wants because she was POLITE about it. You see? I’m not a bigot. I just value POLITENESS.”

As though the “packaging” of justice is theirs to choose! The existence of the decision to appear to listen to non-threatening women rather than abrasive ones is in itself demonstrative of unjust power stolen from women by men, but of course men are too dense to see this. It is as God says of the unbelievers, their hearts are barricaded!

To speak of barriers, the construction project is not yet complete, and the letters were not addressed. It is especially easy to ignore polite requests when they are not embodied in people who are demanding a response with their presence, and must instead write letters. However, because of a couple of women who walked out of the prayer area due to how degrading the separation of this space is–the mosque board announced that the new building will not have a barrier.

I don’t believe them.

Other than the fact that the word of a Muslim man is just about as reliable as Pluto’s planetary status, men–and all Other oppressors (ha, see what I did there? no? k whatever) will, being the sparkling politicians they are, say whatever sounds like great PR at the moment. No victory cries until the project is complete.

A lot of you know that I never value the opinions of male allies on feminist issues while there are feminist writers from whom male allies acquire their ideas to credit. (Revel in this post, because you will never see it again.) I also don’t give cookies. I will never give cookies. But as much as it is true that the support of allies should be unnecessary, that the interpretations of women should carry enough weight to stand on their own in this horrendously patriarchal world with its malestream media, without needing to be rewritten under male names to garner the attention of other men, that men should shut up about women’s issues because a woman speaking about them should be enough–as much as that should be true, it isn’t the dynamics of patriarchal reality. And the stark reality is that some men (of color), eager to not only call out their own oppression but to encourage women to stand with them in doing so, welcome sexism with a stony silence.

The reactions of Muslim men to the kidnapping of schoolgirls by the malesupremacist terrorist group Boko Haram were downright despicable. Not only do men ignore the issue of sexism, they use the platform created by women drawing attention to these horrific crimes to amplify their voices on issues they actually care about. I watched this happen, thread after thread, post after post, tweet after tweet, from otherwise “respectable” men who were quick to destroy legitimate points about how the US should stay the hell out of Nigeria by subtly explaining away Boko Haram’s actions with the failure of the Nigerian government and neglecting to notice that somehow, magically, only supremacy of a certain sex is fostered by the government negligence that victimizes both. (I don’t see a female equivalent to Boko Haram that kidnaps schoolboys and kills hundreds of people, do you? Are men the only victims of government negligence and colonialism?) There is a larger problem, and its name is patriarchy. And out of the hundreds of men who spoke on the issue, it was rare that any of them decried the others.

I do NOT like these images on drones that are distracting from #BringBackOurGirls. I’m not saying imperialism and colonialism aren’t wrong. I’m not saying drone attacks aren’t wrong. But [...] If the brightest idea you have for activism is piggy-backing on other activists’ work to highlight drones, you need to rethink ideas. I’m especially appalled cuz #BringBackOurGirls deals with an eternally marginalized and ignored group – black women. You have no right. To knowingly push drones at the expense of #BringBackOurGirls, which requires all our efforts, isn’t just wrong, it’s shameless.

Let’s not turn #BringBackOurGirls into a discussion about “imperialism” and “colonialism” and especially “drones”. Most of our society – nay our world – is virulently patriarchal. AND virulently misogynistic. #BringBackOurGirls is change in making! #BringBackOurGirls is forcing ppl to THINK about patriarchy. To think about racism. To think about how they’re BOTH hurting black women. To turn #BringBackOurGirls into a debate about drones is like saying, “The discussion it’s already generating is NOT important enough.” PLZ let #BringBackOurGirls dominate. I beg of you. It’s not just about the girls in Nigeria. It’s about all black women. Let em speak! Josh Shahryar

Josh Shahryar is a man, and the only one I’d come across criticizing other men for distracting from the hard work of black women on this issue. Of course, it should be enough when I scream about it. It should definitely be enough when black women scream about it. You shouldn’t even NEED me. You have them. They are enough.

But this is a sick world, and they aren’t. And it isn’t. It isn’t enough. And I will never forgive men for being cowards.

The criminal negligence of men when it comes to sexism is evident in every women’s rights issue. When I asked for letters to the masjid asking the committee to revisit its sexist plans for the new layout, an overwhelming number of respondents were women. In the comments, only one (conceivably) was a man.

Are we really taught that Hazrat Khadijah was an independent tradeswoman and yet women are not allowed to lead prayers? Are we really taught that “paradise is at the feet of your mother” and yet we can not listen to a Muslim woman deliver a khutbah? Are we really taught that Fatima Zahra, the daughter of the Prophet, will be the first person to enter the afterlife, and yet the voices of Muslim women are completely shut out at mosques? How can we truly follow the Qur’an, which teaches that men and women are equal spiritual beings, when our community treats women as inferior to men in our places of worship? Jehanzeb Dar

“That’s not fair, Nahida,” you chirp. “Mostly women read your blog. Because you’re, like, kind of scary.”

Yes, yes I am. And you need me, “good feminist.” Remember that.

I’ve written before about how Muslim men, after pushing women behind curtains, behind barriers, behind deafening silences, suddenly shove us to the front lines when it comes to battling the Islamophobia that affects them, when it comes to battling oppression that they can understand. Instead of answering for these discrepancies, they tokenize examples of women in Islamic history, of women who are, in their own right, historical heroines. The religious communities of men that recognize and praise them, however, are hostile to their modern incarnations. They cite spiritual equality while refusing its physical manifestation in the social and legal spheres. (i.e. God sees us as equal, but I don’t.)

Self-declared male “allies” will champion the principles of equality for Western audiences, publishing redemptive visions of Islam on news sites targeting non-Muslim readers whilst keeping their heads bowed before the sexist male-dominated ulema and their outrageous “laws.” Few have the character to confront sexism where it is most impactful.

I began sending emails to the men in the shura. First about how the mosque’s structure was flawed by separating men and women. During the Prophet Muhammad’s time men and women actually prayed in the same space. The prophet Muhammad didn’t put women behind partitions. I further explained that during the most sacred event a Muslim can partake in, Hajj, or pilgrimage, men and women stand side by side and pray together. If you believe separation is absolutely necessary, I explained to the men in the shura, there’s no need for walls and sheets as barriers. Barriers are just sexist man-made rules. [...] As a consequence of these emails, I was slowly separated from the shura. No more emails about weekly meetings, I was taken off the WhatsApp group. No more text messages about upcoming agendas. –Adeel Ahmed

Most, anxious with the looming threat of realizing their own hypocrisy, will be quick to justify the disconnect between “spiritual equality” and the fact that Islam does not distinguish between belief and practice (in other words, you cannot claim to believe in “spiritual equality” if you fail to practice it legally and socially) by attempting to mansplain that women are “not required to pray at the mosque” (wrong, most notably in regards to jummah) or that “fewer women arrive to pray at the mosque” and therefore there should be a smaller area designated to them. Can you imagine something like that for race? “Fewer Saudis come to this particular masjid, so we should deliver the khutbas in Urdu.” That is how the barrier functions. It actually cuts off the prayer. It’s a literal barrier.

What’s astounding about the former, that women “are not required to pray at the mosque” is that even women will employ this poor excuse for justification. If you’re a woman who believes women “are not required to pray at the mosque” is an adequate reason to not accommodate us with equal effort to worship God, you should not be speaking, because you have made it clear it is against your ideology. Stay home and pray. What’s it to you what the masjid looks like if you’re not interested in going? If you really don’t care because you’re not “required to attend” then what the hell are you even doing in this conversation?

Patriarchy in the (Peripheral) Workplace

My coworkers and I are rather fond of each other. I’m very lucky that way, and seeing as I’m one of those women who have always drawn a distinct line between their personal and professional lives, it’s really saying something as to how wonderful these women are. They’re both white women, and when one of them burst into laughter at the sight of a resume (“Look at this resume. Only a white male would list his children on his resume.”) I nearly proposed my eternal love to her. I’ve discussed the violin with them, described my writing, borrowed classical music composition books, made confessions as to the exact degree of my introversion, inquired about the effectiveness of ballet as a workout, ruminated on the possibility that all we know emerged from a collapsed star in a 4D universe–I even once texted one of them at 3am about my day. We’ve talked about life and dreams and love.

There are still certain boundaries I’ve drawn (I won’t, for example, be Facebook friends with them) to make it clear we are, ultimately, coworkers, not friends, but in all honesty I sometimes share more with them than anyone else–I would have said it’s a common trait of the career woman, but I know I couldn’t do this with just anyone I worked with; it’s their personality types. Somehow we mesh really well. We exchange glances. We make the same humorous remarks. The same injustices outrage us, regardless of how “minor.”

When one of my coworkers went off on a week-long vacation (the other was a new mom and checked out early before I arrived), I happened to feel like wearing a flowy olive dress on a Friday. Because of the coworker on vacation, however, I thought no one will see me in this and, since I wouldn’t wear it twice within one week, reserved the dress for her return. (Of course, people would see me in the dress. What I meant was–no one whose opinion I cared about would see it.) I wore the dress on Monday instead, and realized when I got to the office that she wouldn’t be back until Tuesday.

It occurred to me then, as it had before, that I, a straight woman, had just dressed up for another straight woman–that it was some form of affectionate bonding. I would not have actually commented on the dress, or expected her to, but the fact that I had waited until I could share the vision of myself in it with her is subversive of any patriarchal claim that women dress certain ways for men. There were men in the building, but regardless of whether I wore heels and pencil skirts, I would never dress for them.

As I walked out of the office into the general building, I happened to pass by a stairwell up which a man was struggling to pull a very heavy desk. Despite sensing immediately that the piece of furniture could roll down at any moment and was therefore a threat to my physical safety, I called out, “Need any help?” I couldn’t stop myself; the poor man was red in the face. It would be callous, I thought, to simply walk past him, even though I recognized that at 100 pounds, I would hardly be of any real help and might be committing some grievance against myself.

“Yes please,” he blurted, heaving out the words. I walked up to the massive piece of furniture and attempted to shove it up the stairs in his direction. I didn’t know who he was; I was all too aware of the fact that if he were to let go even a little, the desk would come crashing down into me. As I grabbed the furniture, the man was able to relax a little, but I couldn’t move the desk. He tried pulling it up again, and this time was able to move it further.

“I don’t think I’m much help,” I remarked. What I meant of course was that I wasn’t enough help to actually relieve him of the weight of the desk;–I only made a difference in so far as countering its gravitation pull downward, which, seeing as that ultimately got him to move it, was pretty significant anyway.

“Ha, I should get one of those young guys to do it,” he laughed.

I scoffed audibly. He must have realized he’d offended me, because there was a slight change in his expression. “What you need,” I wanted to say, “is someone who’s more than a hundred pounds–of any sex.” I was well aware I couldn’t lift enough to really help him; I was also aware this had nothing to do with the fact that I’m a woman and everything to do with the fact that, with ballet, I had chosen flexibility over the applicable kind of strength. Unfortunately, I was in a position in which he could very easily hurt me (by simply letting go) and I didn’t know enough of his character to determine whether he could handle being antagonized or would throw an emotional fit. It was not worth paralysis.

“You have this then?” I said, sounding irritated.

“Just–a little–more,” he strained. He took a brief pause. And then, almost as though in attempt to undo the wrong he’d just committed, said, “You must be restricted in that dress.”

It was a vain attempt to blame my unhelpfulness on the dress rather than my strength, and a horribly offensive one, as though my choice of this feminine attire (which is actually rather liberating to the legs, and would have otherwise been an imposition of his patriarchy) was what made me weaker, not the fact that he was expecting a fish to climb a tree. (Let’s see who can do the splits?) I clenched my jaw in suppressed anger. To make matters worse, in that moment as he rested, his eyes swept over me opportunely–the way I was positioned, further down the steps below him, made me conveniently accessible to him–and I could tell, from both my familiarity with the male gaze and from his expression, his thoughts were uninvited ones. I shoved the desk suddenly in his direction, and he started, as if remembering his task. With a single determined heave he pulled it up entirely into the next floor.

“That’s it then,” I said coolly and turned to walk back down the flight. “Thanks!” he called out.

I told myself I shouldn’t have stopped to help him; the worst that could have happened is that he would have been unable to lift the desk, would have let go, and the furniture would be damaged with nothing to stop it from rolling down. If he’d made that mistake while I tried, I wouldn’t have had the strength of/or weight to stop it from continuing down the stairs even on my impact–and it would’ve destroyed me with it. I don’t just dislike putting myself in situations where I’m dependent on some else’s mercy–when that someone else is a strange man I can not trust, it’s a psychotic fucking hatred of the circumstance. But I couldn’t have just walked past him–I hadn’t been conditioned to think of myself first.

Why had he been attempting to lift that thing up the steps himself anyway, without a lift? When he endangering not only himself but anyone who chanced to walk by below? What an idiotically masculine thing to do.

The incident reminded me of something else that had dawned on me early into my current employment; my workplace isn’t just wonderfully non-toxic for a corporate office–the fact that I work closely with mainly women meant events like this never happened. This man worked outside of my office, in the same general building, and chances are I’ll probably never have to hear his “benevolently” misogynistic remarks again.

With my coworkers, however, there wasn’t just the absence of misogyny–there was the kind of bonding that, when between men and masculinity, makes a male-dominated workplace impenetrable for women. As much as I’d wondered whether it was objectionable that I had texted my coworker at 3 in the morning–well, let’s face it, the glass ceiling exists because men text their coworkers at 3 in the morning. And have “business meetings” at strip clubs.

It’s interesting, then, what’s considered “professional”–and who is policed to that perception.

In my quiet little corporate workplace, there was a warm, inviting shift in the cultural makeup, where we discuss piano accompaniments and religion and astronomy rather than boisterously appealing to each other’s masculine inclinations. Any man–if he didn’t fit the atmosphere pre-established by our personalities–would feel like a fish out of water. And this is what patriarchy does to women, with exaggerated demonstrations of masculine culture forming exclusionary impenetrable connections, on a systematic level.

Are you aware of what has been taken from you? I have seen fragments of liberation. If we only knew the full extent of how we’d been wronged, we would set the world on fire.

Islamic History and the Women You Never Hear About: Fatima Muhammad Al-Fihri

Did you know the first institution granting academic degrees in the world was founded by a Muslim woman? Of course you didn’t.

Fatima Muhammad Al-Fihri’s university, the University of Qarawiyyin in Fes, Morocco, is still in operation today. It is the world’s oldest institution of education to continually operate, and after its construction in 859, the university quickly became one of the leading education centers in the world. Conveniently located within the compounds of a mosque that would in the coming centuries expand to become the largest enclosed mosque in the continent of Africa–capacity 22,000–the university attracted scholars from all over the world to the magnificently influential city of Fes. Abu Al-Abbas al-Zwawi, Abu Madhab Al-Fasi, and Leo Africanus are some of the leading thinkers, theorists, and writers produced by Al-Fihri’s university. Renowned mapmakers, astonomers, and historians attended as students. Al-Fihri’s sister, Mariam built the Al-Andalus mosque.

Both sisters were known to have been extremely pious. Fatima Muhammad Al-Fihri, despite having no experience in architecture, oversaw the construction of the mosque and the university in great detail and with great dedication until the project was complete. Non-Muslims were attracted to the mosque as well, and the university played a pivotal role in the cultural and intellectual interactions between the Middle East and Europe. A variety of subjects were taught at the university, including Islamic law, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, history, and–gasp!–music.

Although Al-Fihri was a wealthy woman and contributed considerably to her community, little biographical information has been written or preserved about her. Women who inherit their fathers’ fortunes, you see, give grandly, live quietly, and vanish from the face of the earth while the universities they establish are associated with a patronage of sultans– and their extensive biographies. Al-Fihri, instead, will be (and has been) renowned instead for her modesty and her charitable nature–the “sacrificial Muslim woman (TM)” who gives unthinkingly to her community–and not for her great leadership.

Removed from Societal Context: Verse 33:53, the Veil, and the role of Umar

Umar, the only corrupted caliph of the first four, publicized stoning as a punishment for adultery, a penal ordinance that does not appear in the Qur’an and was delivered by the Prophet in cases when the adulterer was non-Muslim, such as the case of a Jewish woman in Medina whose people had agreed to an Islamic government only if it were separated from Jewish law. The Prophet, in order to keep peace and maintain religious freedom by recognizing non-Muslim laws among the residents he governed, allowed Jewish citizens to maintain their own sub-courts. However, association of stoning with Islamic law was promulgated by Umar after the Prophet’s death.

Unsurprisingly, Umar was known to be cruel to his wives and to physically assault them. Attempting to confine women to their homes, Umar also sought to deter women from attending prayers at the mosques, and, though he failed to accomplish this, managed temporarily to assign not only separate groups but separate imams for men and women. Although the men were led by an imam of their own sex, the women, of course, were led not by a female imam but a male one. They were also prevented from being imams themselves, though while the Prophet was alive, a woman—Umm Waraqa—was appointed to lead both men and women in prayer. This separation arrangement was revoked by the succeeding caliph, Uthman.

Part of Umar’s agenda to confine women to separate quarters manifested in his prohibition for Muhammad’s wives to go on pilgrimage, from which they had not been forbidden while the Prophet was alive. He lifted the restriction the year before he died, but the (historically influential) damage of this and other laws was done. It was not the first time that Umar sought to regulate the behaviors of women by restricting their ability to travel or interact with the opposite sex; while Muhammad was alive, Umar insisted that the Prophet separate his wives from himself, as was the practice of wealthy leaders. Umar was initially unsuccessful with this, as Muhammad did not have his own separate room but shared different rooms with his wives on different nights. While it is true that Muhammad’s wives were harassed by hypocrites who would attempt to assault them, Umar’s proposed solution (that the wives make themselves unrecognizable as the Prophet’s wives by separating themselves from the Prophet) was different from God’s—which was the veil.

But unlike what is commonly understood as the function of the veil, the purpose of the hijab is to separate the intimacy between a wedded couple from the patriarchal intrusions of the outside world. When the Prophet married Zeynab bint Jahsh, a woman renowned for her incredible beauty, he was quietly frustrated by indiscreet male guests who overstayed their welcome, and—as the verse curiously notes that none of the Prophet’s wives are permissible to other men—may have been meddling for indecent reasons. The verse reads,

O you who have believed!
do not enter
the houses of the Prophet
except when you are permitted for a meal,
without awaiting its readiness.
But when you are invited,
then enter;
and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking
to remain for conversation.
Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet,
and he is shy of [dismissing] you.
But God is not shy of
the truth.
And when you ask [his wives] for something,
ask them from behind a partition.
That is purer for your hearts and their hearts.
And it is not conceivable or lawful for you
to harm the Messenger of God
or to marry his wives after him
, ever.
Indeed, that would be in the sight of God an enormity.

It is clear from context then that the notion of whether the men were inappropriately interested in the new bride is not one that is out of question. This opens the verse to the possibility of an abstract interpretation: a veil over the heart, to ensure its purity.

Fawzia Afzal-Khan writes in “A Feminist Reclamation of Islam?” the following:

“The verse on the hijab descended at precisely the moment when the Prophet’s desire to consummate his marriage to the beautiful Zeynab was frustrated by the boorish behavior of his male guests who kept sitting in his living room long after the wedding banquet was over, and who the overly polite (“bordering on timid” as Mernissi describes him)—prophet of Islam, simply could not muster up enough courage to ask to leave. Finally, when they did depart, one male companion still hovered around, by the name of Anas Ibn Malik, and it is he who reported the event of the revelation of the verse about hijab as a witness.

Thus, according to Mernissi, the circumstances of this revelation point to an understanding of the notion of hijab as a tool to protect the intimacy of the wedded pair—their privacy—and to do so by excluding a third person, the man named Anas. He becomes a symbol, then, of a male dominant community that had become too invasive in the life and personal affairs of the prophet.”

This means that the hijab, in the most traditional sense, is meant to serve as a sanctuary against patriarchy; and not in the wear-this-and-you-will-be-protected-from-the-male-gaze kind of way accorded by mainstream, contemporary interpretations of Islam. Rather, it is meant to preserve the private expression and pursuit of Divine Love within a marriage from the overbearing reach of patriarchal exhibitionism.

Originally intended to keep out overbearing men, like Umar who attempt to tell other men how to behave toward their wives and seek to seclude them, from the privacy of quiet, marital understanding, the veil, over the centuries, has been misconstrued as a symbol of the exclusive rights of a husband to the beauty of his wife. In reality, the husband is included behind the veil, encompassed in a shield of love, and protected from the bellicose forces of masculine performance and societal expectations. Umar, patriarchy embodied, had attempted numerous times to impose the patriarchal practices of pre-Islamic societies and of the surrounding cultures onto Muhammad—an infamous preoccupation of the patriarchal male.

The hijab-literally ‘curtain’—‘descended,’ not to put a barrier between A man and a woman, but between two men.

(Mernissi 85)

A woman’s beauty, of course, belongs to no one, and can be policed by no one. Umar had tried—for the rest of time Umars will continue, in vain, to try.

Nahida sums up what is happening, in case you’ve been living under a rock.

When Colonialism Isn’t Enough Boko Haram, the male extremist militia who laughably refer to themselves as People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad, is still terrorizing Nigeria. Scholarly male douchebags of color who have claimed that Boko Haram is responding to a culmination of income inequalities, deprivation & poverty, insecurity, and political corruption fail to explain why Nigerian women who also suffer from income inequalities, deprivation & poverty, insecurity, and political corruption aren’t kidnapping schoolboys to traffic into sexual slavery. Since 2009, the male extremist group has slaughtered thousands and are responsible for the rape of hundreds of schoolgirls.

According to Boko Haram, women needn’t attend school because–as their name reads–Boko Haram’s philosophy is that ‘Western education is a sin.’ This, of course, provides men of color all the more opportunity to blame Boko Haram’s crimes against God on the imposition of the West in Nigeria, a symptom of colonialism that has, again, failed to manifest in the women who’ve suffered not only from colonialism but misogyny. But men of color, like white men, will find any excuse to rape women. What’s the difference between a white man and a man of color? The excuse he gives for rape.

Nigerian women have bravely protested and resisted the terror of Boko Haram, initiating every kind of movement except any that match Boko Haram in organized violence and sheer terror, because Nigerian women, like all women everywhere since the beginning of time, are fucking angels.

ISIS is really uncool, and so is the questionably racist propaganda circulating about them Solidarity to the Iraqi Christians who have been forcibly removed from their homes by the absurdly erratic ISIS, who not only insist that women comply with their restrictive dress codes, but have blown up religious sites revered by Christians and Muslims alike. Is it just me or can men seriously not aim? Did the West impose its educational system on you? Take it out on non-Western women! Did the US unlawfully invade your country and bomb it to the Stone Age? Take it out on Christians who have also been bombed to the Stone Age! In like, the same country. For the love of God, stop scoring into your own goal.

In White People Are Assholes type news, someone spread a rumor that ISIS is mandating FGM for all women and girls, which is bullshit and never happened. Where would you get that idea. Could it be STEREOTYPES.

Update: ISIS crucified 8 Christian members of a rival rebel group. What kind of psycho thinks of things like this? (The Romans, you answer, but it’s a little more twisted to do it to Christians for apostasy. That is like a special kind of sick.)

Israel is trying to be white Oh, what the hell, Israel IS white. They are all European Jews, and anyone who is not a European Jew is sterilized for being the Wrong Kind of Jew. Israel receives $3 BILLION dollars in funding from the US because it’s a US colony. It’s a US colony in which white people from all over Europe, who happen to be the Right Kind of Jew, recreate the ultimate vision of Manifest Destiny, slaughtering nearly a thousand Wrong Kind of Muslims and Christians in a matter of weeks. Certain imams believe the Palestinians are being murdered because they aren’t pious enough. I see your poor application of 13:11 and raise you 29:10.

Muslims in China are fired for being Muslims in China “He told me that his relatives back home were asking: would their fast count if they were forced to eat and drink by the government during the day? [...] I asked him how the government does this. He replied that there is a public luncheon (for example his relative is a schoolteacher) and the Muslims are monitored to see if they eat or drink. So there are people whose job it is to check whether Muslims are eating or not. [...] I asked what were the consequences if they refused. He said that best case scenario is that they would eventually lose their jobs, and worst case scenario, jail and imprisonment and fines.” via Yasir Qadhi-who-should-have-never-said-that-one-thing.

According to a friend of mine who’s lived in Saudi her whole life, the government will beat you up if you’re a man who’s seen eating during Ramadan. (They leave the women alone, for menses I presume.)

If no one else pisses me off sufficiently, regular posts pertaining to Islamic feminism will now resume.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 271 other followers